of language and other arguments

The past few days have been a real linguistic treat for me--a chance to look at the way language works in the minds of people. Well, people within my online sphere, which is admittedly rather large (I am a very dutiful netizen). This week saw the conviction of former Chief Justice Renato Corona, and twenty-three reasons by twenty-three senators for their respective decisions; I've also held converse with a couple of interesting enough people to bolster my thesis statement, which is this: people will likely favor an argument delivered through a more formal variety of language even if such argument lacks substance, over an argument delivered through more informal varieties of language despite the credibility of the message itself.


Let us take, for example, the very masa delivery of Mr Representative Rudy Farinas' closing argument before the Senate sitting as impeachment court. He used the vernacular language instead of straight Legalese English, employing such terms as 'palusot' which has no real equivalent in either English or Legalese, the language of oh-so-lofty lawyers. But did law students buy his argument? No, or at least, this writer saw negative comments, in guise of jokes,  such as 'kinda want him cited for contempt... [for] [o]ffending the intelligence of the judges.' The writer of this comment is a classmate of the writer of this note in the San Beda College of Law, and reflects the views of majority of the views of the freshmen students of said college. But if one is to look, indiscriminately and sans all political and ideological colors, Mr Farinas' argument is quite tenable. Sure, he may not have used straight Legalese like most other lawyers, defense and prosecution panels included, but he did make valid points in his speech and backed said valid points with evidence presented prior by the prosecution panel, and common sense. Take for example the way he rebutted Mr Former Chief Justice Corona's assertion that he had started saving dollars in the late sixties. Mr Farinas explained, in the vernacular language of the streets, that Mr Corona is his academic senior by one year, and if Mr Corona's explanation regarding his dollar accounts is to be believed, then he must have been saving dollars during their elementary schoool years. But why didn't the law students I know who have reacted violently against Mr Farinas acknowledge this very simple, albeit very streetwise and 'pilosopo' but otherwise valid, argument?


And then there is Ms Brilliant Senator Judge Miriam Defensor-Santiago, who is ready to leave at the end of the year the Senate of the Republic of the Philippines for her post in the International Criminal Court in Den Haag, Nederland. She is hailed, rightly in this writer's opinion, as one of the brightest legal minds of this country, albeit a little cracked as seen both inthe media and jurisprudence like Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago. There have been serious doubts about her sanity, the most recent manifestation of which is an online petition to have her removed from the ICC. Whatever the merits of that petition are, the main idea of this paragraph about Sen. Santiago is her explanation of her acquit-vote viz. Rep. Farinas' closing argument. The good lady senator at the end of her stint in the impeachment court however, chose not to pursue either the defense or the prosecution's arguments, but instead attacked the prosecution, the House of Representatives, and her fellow Senators in asking, as I paraphrase, how many of you filed your SALNs, as if pursiung an argument of he-who-is-without-sin-cast-the-first-stone. In short, an argumentum ad hominem--but this has escaped the intelligence of many law students because the good senator and seasoned lawyer. She could still have cast her vote of an acquittal and demanded transparency in all branches of government and still not resorted to ad hominem but rather her own reading and construction of relevant laws in the matter of the impeachment. And however this may be, what was the ace up her sleeve? She is Miriam Defensor-Santiago, a Senator of the Republic of the Philippines, a seasoned lawyer, law professor and former RTC judge, and soon-to-be judge at the International Criminal Court. She can afford to have her personal political vendettas and keep her place in the hearts of conservative law students.


Such is the power of language--that even without substance, an argument, if delivered by a credible and dauntingly powerful enough figure, trumps another with powerful substance but delivered in the more informal and vulgar varieties of language. That truly, English reigns supreme in the hearts and minds of the educated middle classes over our native Filipino. That Filipino is seen as the language of the streets and the 'pilosopo,' the masses and on occasion, the despots who exploit the masses. But Filipino, for the conservative educated middle classes, is not a respectable enough language for courtroom and law classroom debates.


And it's not just Filipino that's looked down by the conservative educated middle classes. There are other varieties of language in this country, some of which the writer of this note is very fond of. The writer refers to her own sociolect--a variety of language peculiar to one individual--which, as a classmate once described, a lovely hybrid of English, Filipino, Legalese, and gay lingo. The writer uses this sociolect in her 'off' and 'chillax' moments--meaning, when she is not writing her legal memoranda, law papers, academic treatises, and other formal write-ups. The use of this sociolect in her Facebook and other social media however does not in any way diminish her intellectual capacity or the sharp wit she employs when conjuring arguments for the same formal papers. Indeed, it can be said the writer of this note does not stop thinking even in her sleep. She merely has a fondness for the more fun varieties of language, she having had a long-term fascination with linguistics and the way language works. She has developed the slow art of divorcing arguments from those who deliver them; the subtle technique of looking beyond the written or the spoken word; and the skill of placing arguments, with all language and the person delivering the same, into their proper historical-materialist contexts. That being said, she deems it a very sad thing indeed that most of the conservative educated middle classes often ignore these factors and look only at the packaging and form of arguments, not the arguments and the messages they convey.


It shouldn't surprise you, dear reader, that despite my ideology, fluency and not-so-humble proficiency in both English and Filipino and all the popular varities of these languages in this country, I chose to write this note in formal English. So that you'd respect my argument and not dismiss me as some kanto-aktibista. (And oh, by the way, and this is not relevant to the body of the text, I am a believer of Socialism, but I am not a Communist. There is helluva difference between the two, and it'll take another note for me to explain that. Rawr.)