In 1841, the meaning of the word again changed in the United States. Filibuster was used to mean obstructive tactics used in legislature such as excessive demand for observance of technicalities or lengthy speeches. And it is in this context that the word is familiar to us today. Two days ago, the Senate ended its third week of sessions with not one of the 37 standing committees constituted to start hearing the bills filed before the chamber. This was all because a senator felt that the majority had decided to give Senate President Pro Tempore Manuel Villar committees "contrary to Senate rules and tradition." This is a Senate problem and only the Senate can resolve it.
In the meantime, Senator Panfilo Lacson has been accused by columnist Ramon Tulfo and Military Intelligence Chief Col. Victor Corpus of the worst crimes since President Estrada’s plunder case. Senate investigations are usually conducted "as an aid in legislation." But the charges against Senator Lacson are so serious that the Senate will have to conduct its own investigation of the case. If it finds incontrovertible evidence to support the charges, it will have no recourse but to expel a colleague from the Senate. The important thing is that the hearing must be fair.
The other body that should look into the very serious charges against Sen. Lacson is the Ombudsman. We cannot understand why the charges against Lacson are directed mostly to media and not the Senate and the Ombudsman. Tulfo and Col. Corpus should present all the evidence they claim to have against Senator Lacson to these two separate and independent government bodies. Do they have the evidence sufficient in law to raise a presumption of fact or establish the fact in question unless rebutted? Or are the charges based purely on rumors, gossip and hearsay?