This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.
On Thursday, November 24, the House committee on justice reopened its probe into the narcotics trade inside the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) during De Lima’s stint as justice secretary. The star of the show was her former security aide-driver and ex-lover, Ronnie Dayan, who is being accused by lawmakers, Bilibid convicts, and the justice department of serving as the senator’s bagman in her alleged dealings with drug lords.
At the start of the hearing in September this year, committee chairperson Representative Reynaldo Umali dismissed suggestions that the probe was meant to humiliate De Lima. “This is not about De Lima, but about the proliferation of drug syndicates in the NBP,” he said then.
On Thursday, however, Filipinos were virtually brought to the bedroom once shared by De Lima and Dayan. Prying into the affair, male lawmakers asked how the relationship started, how much they loved each other, what they did, where they went.
Criticized online, some lawmakers maintained they were all valid questions to drive home a point: that Dayan the bagman indeed had a close relationship with De Lima the drug protector.
Below is a list of some of the questions during the hearing that we believe the hearing could have done without, and who asked them.
1-Ang Edukasyon Representative Salvador Belaro Jr
“May paborito bang pagkain si Senator De Lima?” (Does Senator De Lima have a favorite dish?)
“Mahilig ka ba sa sili?” (Are you fond of chili pepper?)
“May anniversary ba kayo o baka siya lang nag-a-anniversary?” (Did you two celebrate your anniversary in the past, or was she the only one marking the occasion?)
“2007… Kailan ka niya sinagot?” (2007… when did she agree to be your girlfriend?)
“Kasi sabi mo wagas ang inyong pagmamahalan,’di ba? So dapat naalala mo ‘yun. May anniversary ba kayo?” (You said your love for each other was pure, right? So you should remember your anniversary. Did you guys celebrate an anniversary?)
“Malakas na pagmamahalan … Ganito na lang: 2007. Anong intensity ‘yun? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5?” (Intense love for each other… So, let’s put it this way: 2007. What intensity was your love then? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5?)
“2008. So, ilan nga? Intensity ano, 2?” (2008. So, what number? Which intensity, 2?)
“2009. Ganun din?” (2009. Was it the same intensity?)
“Palakas nang palakas hanggang intensity 5. Kailan kayo nag-climax? Intensity 5, anong year?” (Your love became stronger and stronger until intensity 5. So when did you reach climax? Intensity 5, what year?)
Capiz 2nd District Representative Fredenil Castro
“Ito bang relasyon ninyo ay nababase sa tinatawag nating pagmamahal?” (Was your relationship based on what we call love?)
“Ang ibig mo bang sabihin na ang pagmamahal na ito ay maituturing na pag-ibig? Ang iyo bang pag-ibig kay Secretary De Lima ay wagas, dalisay, at matatag? Ibig mong sabihin na ayon sa iyong damdamin, ang pag-ibig na ito’y dalisay, wagas, at tapat? Kaya dahil sa pag-ibig na ito na dalisay, wagas, at tapat ay walang dahilan na siya’y ipagkanulo mo o magsabi ka ng hindi katotohanan?” (Do you mean that your relationship can be considered true love? Was your love for Secretary De Lima pure and solid? Do you mean that based on your feelings, this love was pure and honest? And because of this love that was pure and honest, you have no reason to betray her or tell lies?)
“Ang sinasabi mo na hindi nasuklian ni Senadora De Lima ang wagas mong pag-ibig sa kanya ay itong mga huli nang pagkakataon na ang inyong pagmamahalan ay nasa intensity 1 na lang? Subalit noong ang inyong pagmamahalan ay nasa intensity 5, masasabi mo na wagas, tapat, at dalisay din ang kanyang pagmamahal sa ‘yo? At dahil sa damdamin na ‘yan ay hindi mo maaaring ipagkalulo si Secretary De Lima sa pagsasabi ng hindi katotohanan sa pagdinig na ito?” (You said Senator De Lima did not reciprocate your pure love in the final moments of your relationship, right, when it was down to intensity 1? But when your relationship was at intensity 5, would you say that her love for you was also pure and honest? And because of that, you cannot betray Secretary De Lima by telling lies in this hearing?)
“Sa iyo bang pag-aakala ay naging tapat sa inyong pagmamahalan si Senadora De Lima?” (Do you believe Senator De Lima was honest to your relationship?)
“Ang pagsampal mo kay Secretary De Lima nung nalaman mo na siya ay may kaugnayan sa nagngangalan na Warren Cristobal ay isang pagpapakita ng pagselos dahil sa iyong wagas at dalisay na pagmamahal?” (You slapped Secretary De Lima when you found out that she had a new relationship with Warren Cristobal. Was it your way of showing jealousy since your love for her was pure?)
“Kaya totoo at makatarungan at tapat ang iyong pagmamahal sa kanya?” (So your love for her was true and honest?)
“Ito ay ginawa sapagkat tapat ang iyong damdamin kay Secretary De Lima. Ang ibig mo bang sabihin sa pagdinig na ito na ang iyong relasyon kay Secretary De Lima ay hindi lamang upang saluhan siya na magtampisaw sa pagmamahalan kung hindi siya ay saluhan din sa pagpawi ng init ng katawan?” (You did it because what you felt for Secretary De Lima was true. Are you saying in this hearing that your relationship with Secretary De Lima was rooted not just in love but also in lust?)
Ilocos Norte 1st District Representative Rodolfo Fariñas
“Noong mga panahon na ‘yan, malakas pa ‘yung pag-iibigan ‘nyo ni Secretary or humina na? … Ano ibig sabihin ng signal number 1? Para lang makita ko ‘yung scale, ano ba pinakamataas na signal na inabot ‘nyo? Ano ang pinakasukdulan at pinakamataas na signal na inabot ‘nyo?” (During those times, was your love with the Secretary still strong or had it already weakened? … What does signal number 1 mean? Just so I can see the scale, what was the highest signal that you two reached? What was the peak or the highest signal that you two reached?)
“Nagsasama pa kayo sa isang kuwarto noong mga araw na ‘yan o hindi na? Natutulog kayo sa isang kuwarto?” (Did you still share the same room during those times or not anymore? Were you sleeping in the same room?)
Kabayan Representative Harry Roque
“Sinabi niya na kayo ay nagka-relasyon dahil sa kanyang ‘frailties of a woman.’ Naiintindihan mo ba ‘yung ‘frailties of a woman’? ‘Yung pagiging maselan bilang isang babae. Ang tanong ko sa ‘yo: Pinagsamantalahan mo ba itong si Leila de Lima nung nagkaroon kayo ng relasyon? Siya ba ay naging mukhang maselan noong kayo ay nagkaroon ng relasyon? Sa tingin mo ba pinagsamantalahan mo ang kahinaan ni Leila de Lima bilang isang babae noong kayo ay nagkaroon ng relasyon? Nung sinabi mong hindi mo pinagsamantalahan ang kanyang kahinaan bilang babae, ano ang ibig mong sabihin?” (She said you two fell in love because of the “frailties of a woman.” Do you understand the meaning of “frailties of a woman”? It means her weakness as a woman. My question for you is this: Did you take advantage of Leila de Lima during your relationship? Did she seem fragile to you when you started your relationship? Do you think that you took advantage of Leila de Lima’s weakness as a woman during your relationship? When you said that you did not take advantage of her weakness as a woman, what did you mean?)
“Napakahilig mo naman magsalat.” (You’re very fond of caressing.)
On the other hand, several lawmakers stayed on point. Leyte 3rd District Representative Vicente Veloso, for example, refused to dwell on the relationship during the hearing. “Ayokong makialam doon. Wala kaming pakialam sa relasyon ‘nyo ni Senator Leila de Lima (I don’t want to interfere there. I don’t care about your relationship with Senator Leila de Lima),” he said.
De Lima admitted their relationship 10 days prior to Dayan’s testimony.
Watch the full video of the hearing here:
What do you think? Could the hearing been effective even without these questions? Let us know in the comments section. – Rappler.com