Two Young Congressmen... AreThey For Real?

In the realm of Filipino politics, Congressman Leandro Leviste and Congressman Francisco Barzaga have emerged as two young figures who often leave the public scratching their heads in amusement. 

They are one of those few pairings that are delightfully unpredictable. Known for their lighthearted banter and comedic timing, these two often find themselves in humorous predicaments.

Picture this: during a live event, Kiko attempts to showcase his vocal prowess but accidentally turns it into a stand-up comedy routine, leaving Congressman Leviste in stitches while trying to maintain his composure as a serious politician. 

Their dynamic duo serves as a reminder that even amidst the seriousness of public service, laughter can be found in unexpected places ...even in Congress.

Their youthful exuberance and sometimes outlandish statements can make one wonder if they are genuinely serious about their roles or simply auditioning for a reality show. 

For instance, Leandro Leviste has made headlines for unconventional, high-profile actions rather than typical legislative humor. His actions have been described by some as "magical" or "dramatic" in his approach to anti-corruption

campaigns.

Leviste accused a Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) district engineer of trying to bribe him with ₱3.1 million in August 2025 to stop a probe into flood control projects. He famously declared that "bribing this guy is akin to committing career harakiri" due to his existing wealth.

He was also accused of joining a group of "attention-deficient" lawmakers (sometimes dubbed the "Meow Squad" in political commentary) aimed at making noise for political leverage.

He claimed to have obtained sensitive documents, known as the "Cabral Files," from a deceased DPWH official, leading to controversies over how they were acquired.

On the other hand, Kiko Barzaga is noted for his unconventional, performative, and disruptive style, such as saying "meow" during sessions ... even when using social media. Supporters see that as defying traditional, "boring" legislative decorum, while critics see it as trivializing serious debate. 

That attitude is more fitting in a rowdy high school classroom than the hallowed halls of Congress. 

Kiko Barzaga also gained notoriety for a "chaotic" and satirical style often described as "shitposting," which included the following humorous or irreverent acts:

He branded himself as a "Big PosaCat," using cat emojis, "meow" language, and memes to criticize other politicians, including layering cat faces over them on social media.

He reportedly barged into a colleague's office, sat on a monoblock chair, and sarcastically told them to "sit down" while declaring his own plans for the House, which was seen as a disruptive, albeit "funny" to some, way of challenging the status quo.

He also made lighthearted, yet provocative, jokes about bringing airsoft guns to a protest and "bringing an end to this corrupt government". 

His actions, often described as "unusual behavior" for a member of Congress, were part of a, at times, desperate, at times, calculated attempt to make politics more engaging, though they eventually led to severe backlash, including multiple cyberlibel complaints.

As these two congressmen navigate their political careers with what appears to be an unintentional comedic flair, one can't help but wonder if they are fully aware of how entertainingly absurd they can be. 

Their interactions often resemble those unexpected twists in performances ... moments where you’re not quite sure whether to applaud or chuckle at the sheer unpredictability.

Just as judges in music competitions balance appreciation for creativity with traditional expectations in music competitions, ... voters find themselves balancing admiration for youthful enthusiasm with skepticism about their political acumen. 

Ultimately, whether Leviste and Barzaga are serious politicians or just comedic relief is up for debate—but one thing is certain: they keep us entertained while we ponder the future of Philippine governance.

Their amusing anecdotes in the lower house not only entertain but also highlight how humor can bridge gaps between different worlds—politics and performance art.

Marcoleta's Stance Against ABS CBN VS His Defense Of Discayas

Rodante Marcoleta’s vociferous opposition to ABS-CBN’s franchise renewal, juxtaposed with his vigorous defense of Curlee and Sara Discaya regarding restitution, presents a complex case study in political consistency, morality, and possible underlying motivations. 

Marcoleta’s relentless attacks on ABS-CBN were marked by accusations of corporate malfeasance, violations of broadcasting laws, and alleged bias during election periods.

He highlighted both sins of commission—such as the network's supposed failure to comply with regulatory requirements—and sins of omission, including the non-airing or underreporting of certain government-related issues. 

This aggressive stance culminated in the eventual denial of ABS-CBN’s franchise renewal by Congress, a move seen by many as politically motivated but justified by proponents like Marcoleta on legal and moral grounds.

Conversely, when it comes to Curlee and Sara Discaya—figures embroiled in controversies over restitution claims—Marcoleta has adopted a markedly defensive posture.

Their cases involve allegations surrounding financial improprieties or failure to fulfill restitution obligations following legal proceedings. 

Despite public outcry and demands for accountability similar to those he directed at ABS-CBN executives, Marcoleta has been conspicuously lenient or dismissive in his approach toward the Discayas. 

This dichotomy raises questions about whether his actions are rooted in consistent ethical principles or if selective application is at play.

From an ethical standpoint, Marcoleta’s behavior can be scrutinized through frameworks such as deontological ethics—which emphasizes adherence to rules—and consequentialism—which focuses on outcomes. 

His stringent campaign against ABS-CBN was arguably based on a perceived duty to uphold regulatory standards and protect public interest from potential media abuses. 

However, his apparent blindness toward the Discayas’ restitution issues suggests either an inconsistent application of moral duties or external influences shaping his stance. 

If one holds that morality requires impartiality and equal treatment under similar circumstances, then Marcoleta’s differential behavior appears problematic.

Several factors may underpin this inconsistency. Politically, ABS-CBN represented a powerful media entity often critical of certain political factions with which Marcoleta aligns; thus, opposing its franchise renewal could serve partisan objectives beyond mere legality or ethics. 

In contrast, Curlee and Sara Discaya might belong within his political or social circles, where loyalty overrides strict accountability measures. Additionally, personal motivations such as maintaining alliances or shielding allies from scrutiny could explain why he adopts different standards for different subjects.

Rodante Marcoleta’s relentless attack on ABS-CBN alongside his protective stance toward the Discayas reflects a complex interplay between moral reasoning and political strategy.

While he justified his opposition to ABS-CBN by citing concrete legal violations (sins of commission) and failures (sins of omission), his defense of individuals facing restitution controversies raises doubts about consistent moral application. 

Ultimately, it appears that beyond principle-based ethics lies pragmatic politics influencing Marcoleta’s motivations—a phenomenon not uncommon in legislative environments where power dynamics often shape ostensibly ethical decisions.