In apparent reinforcement of the complaint, Justice pro tem Ed Manibusan noted, in a hearing this past Thursday, that the term “muchacho” means “slave” in the Chamorro language.
What has been ignored and overlooked is the fact that Govendo is not Chamorro. It is only reasonable to assume that he was using the term in the mainland sense of the word, where it is defined as “young man.” (See the New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd edition.)
Also overlooked and ignored is the fact that the person addressed by Govendo is not Chamorro either. He is a Filipino, where, again, the word is understood to refer to a young male, not a slave.
The whole argument about the use of “muchacho” would, therefore, seem to be irrelevant.
The word was apparently offensive to someone who happened to overhear it used in court. But it was not offensive to the person so addressed. Nor was it used — or intended — as an offensive epithet by the judge. If no offense was meant, and none taken, where is the issue?
It seems rather unreasonable to call a judge’s adherence to judicial canons into question simply because a bystander chose to take offense at the use of a word whose meaning was only offensive to the bystander.
RUTH TIGHE
Tanapag, Saipan
