Every orchestra has its quiet moments—not the silence of rest, but the silence of watching. The musicians glance at one another, counting beats, listening not just to the conductor but to the mood in the hall. It is in this silence that plots are born.
This is where the story of the attempt to unseat Senate President Tito Sotto truly begins—not with a loud revolt, not with a dramatic walkout, but with whispers that sound like concern and questions that pretend to be innocent. Is the tempo right? Is the music still relevant? Are we being heard? These questions do not arrive as accusations. They arrive as invitations—to doubt.
The plot, as I have come to understand it through years of watching institutions up close, does not unfold like a coup. It unfolds like a rehearsal gone wrong.
At first, only a few musicians are restless. They feel constrained by the score. They want more room for solos, more freedom to improvise, more influence over when and how the piece is played. The conductor, doing his job, insists on discipline. He keeps time. He limits excess. He reminds everyone that the music is bigger than any one instrument. That is when discipline begins to feel like oppression to those who prefer disorder disguised as creativity.
So the narrative shifts.
The conductor is no longer described as steady; he is described as outdated. He is no longer firm; he is labeled inflexible. Effectiveness is reframed as obstruction. Stability is recast as stagnation. And slowly, deliberately, the idea is planted: Perhaps the concert would sound better with someone else on the podium.
This is how the plot against a Senate President matures—not through proof of failure, but through exhaustion of trust.
What makes this dangerous is not the existence of dissent. Dissent is healthy. What makes it dangerous is that the dissatisfaction does not come from the entire orchestra, nor from the musical director, nor from the concert organizer or producer who understand the full cost of collapse. It comes from a few musicians who believe that if the concert breaks down, they will somehow emerge louder, more visible, more powerful.
They forget one thing: when the music collapses, no one sounds good.
In the Senate, the equivalent of this sabotage is subtle. It appears in delayed cooperation, in lukewarm support, in procedural friction dressed up as principle. It surfaces in statements that stop short of rebellion but drip with ambiguity. I am open to change. We are just asking questions. This is about institutional integrity. These words sound noble, but they are often the soft gloves worn by hard ambition.
And here is the most painful truth: the Senate President does not fall because he has lost control. He falls because enough senators decide that staying loyal is riskier than leaving. The plot succeeds not when the conductor makes a mistake, but when the musicians decide they no longer want to listen.
This is why the attempt to unseat Tito Sotto is not really about his competence. It is about control of the tempo. It is about who decides which issues move forward, which investigations gain oxygen, which voices are amplified, and which are kept in harmony with the whole. It is about the future—about positioning for the next act, the next election, the next distribution of power.
Those pushing the plot understand this well. They do not rush. They wait for a moment of national noise—an impeachment controversy, a constitutional dispute, a moral outrage—anything that can be used to argue that the music has become unbearable. They rely on confusion, because confusion lowers standards. When the audience cannot tell who is at fault, they are more willing to accept a sudden change.
But this is where the tragedy lies.
If the conductor is replaced not because he has lost the music, but because a few refuse to follow it, the orchestra does not improve. It fractures. The new conductor inherits mistrust, not harmony. The score is already torn. The audience, sensing instability, stops listening with respect and starts listening with suspicion.
I have seen this happen in government, in organizations, even in families. Change driven by sabotage does not heal—it destabilizes. It teaches everyone that discipline is optional, loyalty is temporary, and order can be overturned by persistence rather than principle.
And so I return to the orchestra.
If the conductor is truly failing—if he has forgotten the score, lost the tempo, or abandoned the music—then change is not only justified, it is necessary. But if the music is still coherent, if the orchestra is still functioning, and if only a few insist on stopping the concert because they want the baton for themselves, then what follows is not renewal.
It is disaster.
Leadership, like music, is fragile. Once broken, it cannot be easily repaired. And history is unkind to those who confuse sabotage for reform. In the end, the audience may not remember every note—but they will remember the moment the music stopped, and who chose to let it fall apart.
_____
*About the author:
