Pink Silence: Why Is No One Talking About the Risa Hontiveros Witness Scandal?

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

This was recently posted by a certain Rob Rances. Don't know the guy, but I do care about what he is saying, an opinion piece, he says. However, are his statements true?

"THEY SAID, “YOUR VOTE REFLECTS YOUR VALUES.” SO WHAT HAPPENS NOW?

For years, the Pinklawans have told us:

“Your vote is a mirror of your conscience.”

“We stand for truth, justice, accountability.”

“Duterte supporters are blind loyalists.”

But now that Senator Risa Hontiveros—the moral poster girl of their movement—is being accused of masterminding a fabricated witness operation, suddenly, their moral megaphones have gone silent.

No statements.

No hashtags.

No Senate ethics complaints.

Not even a whisper of concern.

So we ask:

Is silence now a reflection of their values too?

THEY CALLED IT BLIND LOYALTY. NOW THEY’RE DOING THE SAME.

When Duterte supporters stood by him through controversies, Pinklawans called it political blindness. Now that a Pink icon is being implicated in scripted testimonies, alleged payouts, and condo safe houses, they call it…

…nothing.

Not a word.

Not a question.

Not even the usual “let the truth come out.”

So what changed?

Is it loyalty now? Or strategic hypocrisy?

IS THIS “VOTE WITH CONSCIENCE” OR “COVER FOR YOUR OWN”?

They project: “We are better than them.”

But when the scandal hits their side, the same people who once demanded accountability become experts in redirection, deflection, and denial.

So let’s be brutally honest:

If the same allegations were leveled against Bong Go or Bato, would they stay this quiet? Would they still be preaching nuance? Or would the headlines, protest posts, and Senate walkouts have started yesterday?

BACK TO YOU, PINKLAWANS.

This isn’t about left or right.

This is about moral consistency.

So if your vote reflects your values, and your values claim to stand for truth—then where is your outrage now?

Because if silence means consent, then what exactly are you consenting to? A Senate witness operation built on scripts and cash? Or the slow erosion of every value you claimed to fight for?

POWER PUNCH: TAKE NOTE

The real test of integrity isn’t how you treat your enemies—it’s how you hold your allies accountable.

So dear Pinklawans, you asked the nation to vote with conscience. Now the conscience is knocking on your door.

Will you answer? Or hide behind the curtains of convenience?"

________________________________

Let's dissect its logical flaws, ethical inconsistencies, and lack of verified basis. Here's a rebuttal grounded in moral philosophy, jurisprudence, and critical reasoning:

1. Presumption of Innocence

Legal Source: Article III, Section 14(2), 1987 Philippine Constitution

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved."

Invalidation: The piece relies heavily on innuendo rather than fact. It insinuates guilt by association or silence without due process. While the disclaimer claims not to accuse, the tone and structure do the opposite—effectively trying the accused in the court of public opinion.

Moral Counterpoint: Justice demands due process, not mob judgment. Prejudging someone before evidence is verified is both unethical and legally unsound.

2. Moral Equivalence Fallacy

Ethical Principle: Moral relativism is not a justification for selective outrage.

Invalidation: The article commits a "tu quoque" fallacy (Latin for "you too"). It assumes that if one side (e.g., Pinklawans) criticized Duterte supporters, they must behave identically or be hypocrites. That’s intellectually dishonest.

Example: Just because some Duterte supporters were silent on past controversies does not morally bind others to react identically.

Counterpoint: Demanding integrity must apply across the board. But accusing others of hypocrisy doesn’t justify doing the same, nor does it prove wrongdoing.

3. Absence of Verified Evidence

Legal Reference: Rules of Court on Evidence, Rule 128-133 (Philippines)

Invalidation: The author leans on allegations without citing official findings, court proceedings, or verified sources.

The supposed scandal involving Sen. Risa Hontiveros has not been legally established, nor has she been indicted or found guilty.

Danger: Weaponizing suspicion as “fact” misinforms the public and contributes to trial by publicity.

4. Silence ≠ Guilt or Hypocrisy

Ethical Reference: Philosophy of Discourse Ethics (Habermas)

Invalidation: The article assumes that silence among Pinklawans is proof of guilt or approval. But silence could result from:

Awaiting facts.

Legal prudence.

Media restraint.

Ethical Reality: True moral integrity includes withholding judgment until facts are clear, not being the loudest voice on social media.

5. Projection and False Moral Superiority

Philosophical Principle: Socratic Method of Self-Examination

Invalidation: The opinion attacks the persona of the Pinklawans rather than addressing policy positions or specific, proven actions. This is ad hominem.

It portrays “Pink” personalities as self-righteous caricatures, but never holds pro-Duterte forces to the same standard in the same article.

Ethical Discourse: Accusing others of moral superiority without self-examination is not a call for accountability—it’s veiled propaganda.

6. No Equal Standards of Scrutiny

Media Literacy Principle: Double standards in outrage indicate bias, not truth.

Invalidation: The piece demands instant outrage from a specific group but fails to acknowledge that outrage must be grounded in truth, not sensationalism.

It does not explore whether supporters from the "Pink" side are truly silent—or simply choosing platforms outside mainstream media, such as legal channels, behind-the-scenes advocacy, or due diligence.

7. Moral Integrity Is Not Always Loud

Ethical Principle: Virtue ethics (Aristotle) — moral excellence lies in wise action, not loud reaction.

Invalidation: The piece equates silence with moral collapse. But virtue sometimes means resisting the urge to react rashly—especially in polarized climates.

Accountability is not measured by hashtags but by measured, fact-based response.

FINAL THOUGHT: Legitimate Critique vs. Weaponized Rhetoric

While the right to free speech and opinion is protected, moral and legal integrity requires clarity between:

Asking for accountability (which is just and good),

Versus weaponizing unverified allegations to paint political opponents as hypocrites (which is divisive and misleading).

REFERENCES:

Philippine Constitution (1987), Article III, Section 14

Rules of Court, Philippines – Rules 128-133 (Evidence)

Habermas, Jürgen – Discourse Ethics

Aristotle – Nicomachean Ethics

Logical Fallacies (e.g., tu quoque, ad hominem, guilt by association)

If truly calling for moral consistency, the author must also apply the same rigorous standards to all political camps—without exploiting half-truths or implying guilt based on association or media silence. Anything less is not integrity—it’s partisanship in moral clothing.

About "WazzupPilipinas.com"

WazzupPilipinas.com is the fastest growing and most awarded blog and social media community that has transcended beyond online media. It has successfully collaborated with all forms of media namely print, radio and television making it the most diverse multimedia organization. The numerous collaborations with hundreds of brands and organizations as online media partner and brand ambassador makes WazzupPilipinas.com a truly successful advocate of everything about the Philippines, and even more since its support extends further to even international organizations including startups and SMEs that have made our country their second home.