nardong kupit

23 January 2014

In our Amazing Stories, here’s the Story of Boy Pikap and Nardong Kupit:

Ibinunyag ni Nardong Kupit ang umano’y pagmamaniobra ng administrasyon sa impeachment trial ni dating Chief Justice Corona na kaya sya drinive ni Boy Pikap papuntang Malakanyang para hikayating bomoto na i impeach si Corona.

Nataranta si Boy Pikap na nagpahayag nang, “Dati kaming magkasama ni Nardong Kupit (sa) Senado kaya nang iparating niya na mayroon siyang gustong i-take-up sa Pangulo kasama ang Cityhood ng Bacoor at ang kanyang pagiging Pangulo ng Partido Lakas, gumawa ako ng paraan para magkausap sila,”. And sabi pa ni Boy Pikap, he personally drove the vehicle that carried Nardong Kupit, who wanted to meet Aquino.

NARDONG KUPIT ! putik, ang ganda! was my rave response to reyna elena’s status on facebook.  i wished i had thought it up myself.  so apropos a riposte to actor-senator bong revilla’s o.a. dramatics, professing his innocence, alleging persecution, giving what he must have thought was the greatest performance of his life.  I … AM NOT …. AFRAID !  i thought he was going to say: I … AM NOT … A PIG !  ay mali.

NARDONG KUPIT !  for the non-tagalogs: kupit is tagalog for filching, pilfering.  and an anagram of putik, i.e., mud.  nardong putik was a kabitenyo gangster who seemed to have nine lives, thanks allegedly to a powerful anting-anting (amulet), and who was successfully portrayed in the movies by no less than senator bong’s father, also an actor, and senator (1992-2004), ramon revilla sr. (yes, think dynasty).

NARDONG KUPIT !  it was quite a speech, actually.  the parts calling out the prez on festering issues and questioning his tuwid-na-daan again and again were spot-on, but, really, coming from bong revilla, i can only say, AS IF !  as if he were some exemplar of tuwid-na-daan!  if he were, and if he were truly innocent of pocketing much of his pork barrel funds, he should have used that privilege speech to convince us, prove, that none of his wealth is ill-gotten.

instead of showing us signatures a la jose velarde, i mean, a la joker arroyo, he could have shown us a record of his earnings from all the movies and commercials and tv shows he has ever starred in and/or produced.  instead of showing us a passport and airline records a la freddie webb, he could have shown us his bank records, and revealed the sources of any and all large deposits.

and, really, he shouldn’t have brought his wheelchaired dad to the senate.  alam tiyak ng mag-ama that the last time, the first time, something like that happened was back in 1991, and the wheelchaired one was the venerable lorenzo tanada, there to witness the historic occasion when his son wigberto voted along with senate president jovito salonga and 10 other valiant ones against the treaty that sought to extend the occupation of clark field and subic by US military forces.  i remember tearing up, sharing the old man tanada’s unabashed happiness after decades of struggle.

i felt no such sympathy for the aged ailing revilla whose struggles were for his own ever-growing family, never for country, or so it would seem.  there was no sharing his unabashed grief for a sullied name, if that, indeed is what he was so miserable about.  if anything, his presence only reminded of his many mistresses and some 72 children, and the question of his own unexplained wealth, not to speak of nardong putik, now kupit.

Posted in pork barrel, senate

8 Responses to nardong kupit

  1. January 23, 2014 at 5:28 am

    Kupit earns him more to be putik.

  2. January 23, 2014 at 5:31 am

    Mr. President, Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus – false in one, false in all. Sinungaling sa isa, sinungaling sa lahat!

    Mga kababayan, itanong ninyo sa inyong mga sarili, bakit po dapat paniwalaan ang sinungaling na political wrecking crew na ito ng mga nagkukunwari at pekeng whistleblower?

    The rule should only be applied when a witness “willfully and knowingly gives false testimony.”

    Note: Wasn’t able to view Revilla’s speech in the senatedotgovdotph site…is it not worth posting?

    • January 23, 2014 at 5:36 am

      “It is only natural for an accused to say anything just to get out of his problem. In fact, everybody would understand that a person in his situation would sacrifice others to save his skin. Kahit ano sasabihin niyan at kahit sino ituturo, basta may pangako na malululusutan niya yung kaso niya. Hindi ba’t ‘yan ang istorya ng mga makapili?”

      Bong Revilla’s lawyer was quoted in October last year. It’s as if lawyer Bodegon just did what he preached. Can we now apply the Latin maxim Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus to Revilla’s speech?

  3. January 23, 2014 at 5:39 am


    Pati daw pala si Sr. ay may transactions kay Napoles.

  4. January 23, 2014 at 12:54 pm
    john c. jacinto

    like father, like son. sa pera at sa pu__, parehong masiba itong mag-ama. ginawa pa nyang props ang kasingtulad na ama na sakitin at uugod-ugod sa hangaring malihis ang atensyon ng bayan sa kanyang kakurakutan. mandaramBong, resign na!

  5. January 23, 2014 at 3:07 pm
    manuel buencamino

    His speech appears to have backfired.

    • January 23, 2014 at 4:39 pm



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


follow @stuartsantiago on twitter

recent comments

  • © Angela Stuart-Santiago