Atty. Trixie of the Luminous weighed in on “lavish display of wealth” allegation by some noisy showbiz personalities against driver’s party-list Rep. Dendee Bautista.
Atty. Trixie began by giving netizens an idea why some showbiz personalities she named below are in hot water.
Agot, Enchong, Pokwang and Ogie Diaz criticized Cong. Dendee Batista’s wedding. Tila sinasabi nila na nasa pandemiya tayo tapos gumagastos siya ng ganun kalaking halaga para lang ikasal.
Why is Cong. Bautista’s wedding wrong for them? Atty. Trixie asked.
Atty. Trixie answered her question why Cong. Bautista’s wedding was wrong in the eyes of Agot, Ogie Diaz, Pokwang and Enchong Dee.
Well, in RA 6713, sinasabi ng batas na kailangan ang mga opisyales ng gobyerno dapat simple living lang. Ayon sa probisyon:
Sec. 4 (h) (h) Simple living. — Public officials and employees and their families shall lead modest lives appropriate to their positions and income. They shall not indulge in extravagant or ostentatious display of wealth in any form.
So, ok. Ostentatious display of wealth ba ang ginawa ni Cong. Bautista? May labag ba siya sa probisyon na ito? Atty. Trixie asked the follow-up and logical question.
Atty. Trixie urged netizens to focus on the first sentence of Sec. 4 so that they can follow her explanation.
Well. sabi sa first sentence “shall lead modest lives appropriate to their positions and income.”
At this juncture, Atty. Trixie gave netizens a picture how affluent Cong. Bautista family is in Mindanao.
Sino ba si Cong. Bautista and ano ang financial position niya? Well, kongresista siya, and therefore national figure. Ang pamilya niya ay may kaya. Gobernador ang ama niya at ang pamilya nila ay may ari ng malawakang mga lupain, at marami silang negosyo.
Now that netizens know Cong. Bautista’s family is rich, Atty. Trixie asked if her lavish wedding was appropriate for her family’s status?
Kng P5M ang kanyang gown, kaya ba ito ng pamilya niya? Angkop ba ito sa status ng pamilya niya?
Because as far as Atty. Trixie is concerned, Cong. Bautista and her groom can afford to spend for such grand wedding.
Tila ganun nga. OK lang at nararapat sa income ni Madame at ang kanyang bagong asawa ang mamahalin nilang kasal.
May ostentatious display of wealth ba dito? Atty. Trixie once again asked if there was such a thing and proceeded to define ostentatious.
Ano ang “ostentatious”? Ayon sa diksyonaryo, ito ay characterized by vulgar or pretentious display; designed to impress or attract notice. So… nagtatawag pansin.
Ostentatious ba? Or would the more appropriate question be: May “display” ba? Atty. Trixie asked if there was a display on the part of Cong. Bautista.
Atty. Trixie answered that Cong. Bautista isn’t guilty of public display but her designer. Did she post her “lavish” wedding photos on social media? The answer is NO.
Apparently ang nag post ng mamahaling wedding gown ay yung designer mismo, si Michael Cinco. Ang nag report tunkol sa mamahaling selebrasyon ay sa post sa social media. Walang pictures pa na nakikita na galing sa panig ni Cong. Bautista.
Ergo, Atty. Trixie said the assertion that Cong. Bautista violated RA 6713 is not true.
Hindi ostentatious display of wealth kung, kahit mamahalin ang event, ay private naman ito, at di ipinamumukha sa mga mahihirap. o sa publiko.
Atty. Trixie wrapped up the post saying Agot’s appreciation of the wedding was wrong.
So tila mali ang appreciation nina Agot.
That gown alone can feed hundred of families of displaced drivers.— Agot Isidro (@agot_isidro) August 14, 2021
And you’re representing which sector again, Cong. Claudine Bautista? 🤷🏻♀️ https://t.co/KdnuDW1bxG