Roderick Paulate's toughest showbiz critic

IF most parents are supportive of their children's showbiz careers, Roderick Paulate's dad was an exception. A typical disciplinarian, his dad — a former department head of The Manila Times — resented his entry into the showbiz fray.

It was Roderick's doting mom who had his back, cheering him on as he was slowly making a name for himself.

In a lengthy yet insightful vlog interview by Ogie Diaz, the 63-year old actor shared his parents differed in the way he was brought up.

Whereas his mom was his huge fan, his father never cared about what he aspired to achieve in life.

As a strict newspaper section chief, his father half-heartedly accepted Roderick's decision to take the showbiz route provided he never got to stumble upon published articles about his son on the Times pages.

But could the father help it most especially when Roderick began to be recognized during his fledgling years in the biz?

It was at a play staged at the University of the Philippines (where Roderick obtained his college degree in mass communication) where the actor churned out an impressive performance that earned him a resounding standing ovation.

Advertisement

The senior Paulate — who was seated in the audience — couldn't help but marvel at his son's praiseworthy performance, «You're really an actor now!»

Since then Roderick couldn't be any happier that finally, his once non-fan dad made a 360-degree turn.

Consistently, it has been Roderick's conscious effort to put his best foot forward.

The actor owes a lot to showbiz because without it, he might not have succeeded in transitioning to local politics years later.

Advertisement

This is also precisely the reason why he wouldn't allow his, ahem, revered name to get sullied nor tarnished.

It is saddening to note that in November of 2022, the Sandiganbayan found Roderick guilty of graft by hiring fictitious job contractors in 2010 while serving as Quezon City Councilor.

Guess how much money was involved — P1.1 million! This columnist believes that the amount in question was too infinitesimal an amount for Roderick to stake his name.

While his appeal was denied in January the following year, Roderick was unperturbed, citing his constituents who