It amuses me that the Liberal Party (LP) gets associated with the call for human rights these days.

I guess that the karma of labels is finally catching up with this party. Liberalism is the political philosophy of human rights. And as far as I am concerned, we have never achieved a liberal democracy in the country. So maybe the LP is challenged to finally live up to its name. Hopefully the whole lot of our political parties can live up to their names too – Nacionalista, Partido ng Masang Pilipino, PDP-Laban – all trumpet their values. Yet as far as it goes, none of these values have been put in place in society.

If there is one generally accepted statement about or political system, it is that it needs reform.

Human nature

When I teach political theory in my university, I tend to follow the system of the feminist philosopher Allison Jaggar. In her book, Feminist Politics and Human Nature, Jaggar often begins with the question, “What does a political theory believe about what makes us human?” For Jaggar, the way each theory answers this question determines what its views are of the good life, a good society, and a good government.

For liberalism, rationality is what makes humans distinctly human. For liberals, rationality means that people know what it is they want or what it is that is good for them. They also know how to go about getting what they wish.

And so for liberals, the best way for people to live a fulfilled and happy life is to let them find their way. This, of course requires a referee. Otherwise there would be mayhem.

Notice I said referee, not director, nor father figure nor dictator. A referee is merely the person who points out the rules and gives assurances these are applied fairly so that everyone can pursue their goals and no one gets hurt.

Minimal government intrusions

In liberal philosophy the state or government is the referee. It ensures that people don’t get in each other’s way so that they may freely pursue “life, liberty and happiness”.

The state, like any referee, ensures that the rules are applied to each person without discrimination. In other words, the rule of law.

In fact, the early liberal formulations for what the state should do is very minimal: ensure agreements are lived up to when people agree, maintain peace and order among the citizens, and ensure external defense.

The minimal state was fundamental to liberal theorizing because of liberalism’s belief that we are human because we have the rationality to know what is good for ourselves and the freedom to pursue that goodness. Liberals were and have always been fearful of a power that rises above the equal power that exists among individuals.

And so, the first great formulation of human rights was, and remains, a caveat that limits the power of the state to intrude into individual lives. Some philosophers believe that the first big distinction in human rights is the division between what is governable by the state (the public domain) and what cannot be governed by the state (the private domain). In liberal democracies, the public realm, that which the state can regulate, must be kept small compared to the larger realm of individual freedom.

Thus the basic political and civil rights are meant to curtail state power. The rights to freedom of expression, the freedom of the press, the rights to privacy, freedom of religion, the sanctity of our communications, freedom of assembly and movement, the right to physical and mental integrity, and most especially the right to life, are expressly guaranteed by constitutions of liberal democracies which include the Philippines.

The guarantees are the people’s orders to our government and its leaders, including the president, not to use the powers we have granted them for a purpose outside that of protecting each and every person by ensuring that the laws are applied fairly.

Our leaders and all the powers and functionaries of government are to be used so that no one’s home is violated by the police looking for addicts, no one who is expressing his or her opinion is threatened by the mob, the media is allowed to say whatever stupid or smart thing it wants, the Catholic Church can practice its traditions such as providing sanctuary. Most importantly, no one – not the crazed maniac nor drug addict nor the cold-blooded mercenary and not the police – should take the life of another person.

Human rights prevents crime

Most civilized societies have moved beyond these original formulations to ensure greater freedoms and increase happiness. Hardly anyone loses his or her life to crime and state power such as police brutality or the death penalty. Indeed, in societies such as the Scandinavian countries and Japan where there has been decades of human rights observance by the state, the crime rate has been decreasing, and in some instances, is close to zero. 

Perhaps another thought piece on the development of human rights concepts in the past two centuries might be helpful too. But these days we seem to have been set back to the earliest of formulations. Unfortunately it is time to reiterate the basics.

When people say of these killings in the drug war that human rights activists care only for the addicts and not their victims, they are wrong on so many counts. Because human rights advocates care that no one is deprived of his or her right to life, and have always called on the state to protect that right. When human rights advocates call on the state to observe due process before convicting anyone SUSPECTED of addiction, it is to ensure that no one is unfairly condemned by a state that is meant to protect and promote our right to life rather than curtail it.

This, too, is why we oppose the death penalty. When we put emphasis on the government’s wrongs it is because all of us gave that government power to hold guns, run prisons, and hold courts to ensure our well-being. I did not give the criminals power to curtail my freedoms. I did not vote criminals into power, nor did I pay taxes so that they would carry guns and be allowed by the courts to enter my homes if needed, arrest me if needed, and imprison me if needed.

I gave that power to our national leaders and those under their command. And so, indeed, we must all be more concerned when the people who have vowed to protect us – to whom we have given up some of our freedom so that we can all achieve our goals – betray us.

The ordinary criminal has harmed another person indeed and that is why we gave the government power so that it can deal with these criminals effectively. But it is the government that has both harmed and betrayed the individual and society when it uses its powers to kill. This is why it is also standard in most democracies to have a special government agency looking at abuses by the police and military. In the Philippines, we have the Comission on Human Rights.

The duty of the state

In social media recently, someone said that human rights defenders easily blamed PNP Chief Ronald dela Rosa and President Rodrigo Duterte for the drug war killings but wanted to know whom we would blame for the acts of criminals. My answer would be: we still blame the President and the police chief. They are mandated by the Constitution to prevent these crimes and when these are committed, to bring the criminals to justice so that they do not threaten us again.

Our basic laws and decades of experiences in the Philippines and in other countries have shown that criminals can be brought to justice without violating their rights. When a government begins to quibble about human rights, it is essentially saying it has failed in its most fundamental of duties to its citizens.

Who is responsible for any instance of the loss of life or safety in our society? Whoever it is that did the act is of course responsible. But who is implicated when crime or human rights violations occur? The government. The government is the ultimate duty bearer for all the rights violated by our fellow citizens, as well as by the police and the military.

Those of us who have worked for decades on human rights know that rights cannot be divided. The rights of one group (victims of drug crimes or the Rohingya) cannot be traded off for the rights of another group (addicts). There is no such thing as a democracy that applies the rule of law in some instances and not in others. We must fight for human rights for everyone regardless, and in all instances, regardless. To do otherwise will only lead to more harm for everyone. – Rappler.com 

Two weeks before Ferdinand Marcos’ hundredth birth anniversary, President Rodrigo Duterte revived public discussions about the Marcoses’ wealth.

In a speech before new appointees, the President said that a “spokesman” of the Marcoses intimated they might soon “return” some of their wealth – including “a few gold bars” – to help the government tide over its larger budget deficit this year.

But what struck me the most was the claim that President Marcos “hid” the money to “protect the economy.” The President said he accepted this explanation by the spokesman.

This statement is wrong on two accounts: First, the Marcoses did not “hide” money; they plundered from the Filipino people. Second, plundering to “protect” the economy makes no economic sense at all.

In the early 1980s the country was gripped by a severe debt crisis where we direly needed funds to repay our oversized debts. Offshoring vast sums of money in these circumstances did not “protect” the economy. In fact, it exacerbated capital flight and helped bring about the country’s deepest postwar recession.

I’ve written about the Marcosian economy before (READ: Marcos years marked ‘golden age’ of the PH economy? Look at the data). But in this article I take a closer look at the country’s debt crisis, and why it matters in the revived talks about the Marcoses’ wealth.

1) Too much debt, too fast

Figure 1. Sources: World Bank, BSP, Dohner & Intal Jr. [1989].

Figure 1 shows the dramatic rise of the country’s external debt in the late 1970s and early 1980s, as manifested by various indicators. In just 5 years (1977 to 1982), the country’s debt grew by a whopping $16 billion dollars.

Several factors led to this exponential increase in our external debt. First, Marcos needed funds to finance his huge infrastructure spending spree – a progenitor of “Build, Build, Build” – and pursue 11 major industrial projects that were meant to boost industrialization.

At the same time, international capital markets were awash with “petrodollars” we could borrow. Twin oil price shocks in the 1970s resulted in significant windfalls for oil producing countries, and they used their new funds to invest worldwide, including countries like the Philippines.

But a series of unfortunate events in the late 1970s and early 1980s – tighter money supply in the US that led to higher world interest rates; the Philippines’ greater reliance on loans with floating rates; successive current account deficits; and the peso’s depreciation against the dollar – led to an unprecedented growth of our foreign debts.

2) Unsustainable debt

In principle, increasing debt should have been manageable so long as its growth didn’t exceed that of the economy in general, or exports (which earned dollars) in particular.

But Figure 2 shows that from 1972 to 1981 the growth rate of debt exceeded GDP growth by a factor of 3.4, and exceeded export growth by a factor of 2 (on average).

Figure 2. Sources: PSA, Dohner & Intal Jr. [1989].

Ballooning debt should also have been manageable if only the new funds went to productive, high-return investments that could pay for themselves.

But in a famous 1984 “white paper,” Dr Emmanuel de Dios and other professors at the UP School of Economics found that “the bulk of construction and other capital outlays in both the private and public sectors were not very productive and many were outright wasteful.”

For instance, funds went into the construction of “overdesigned” bridges, highways, and public buildings, as well “white elephants” like the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, which took us 3 decades to pay, yet did not generate a single kilowatt of power.

3) Amid huge debts, capital fled the country

Rapidly accumulating debts could have been counteracted by a concurrent accumulation of capital – whether in the form of foreign direct investments (equipment and structures) or portfolio investments (stocks and bonds).

But in the early 1980s, capital fled the country in droves. Figure 3 shows that in just 12 years (1971 to 1982) almost $8 billion worth of capital had left the country. This exodus of capital – although not unique at that time – accounted for 37% of debt accumulation in the Philippines over that period.

Figure 3. Source: Dohner & Intal Jr. [1989]. Negative capital inflow means capital outflow. BSP errors and omissions – an alternative (and narrower) measure of capital flight – refers to increases in central bank reserves and banking system foreign assets, less net inflow of foreign direct investment.

There were many reasons for this capital flight: the early 1980s was rocked by political instability, what with questions about Marcos’ legitimacy and health, as well as the strengthening of the communist insurgents. The economic climate was also made unattractive by Marcos’ crony capitalism, as well as a spike in global interest rates. All these factors induced investors to migrate their funds and do business elsewhere.

Years of capital flight pushed the country into a full-blown debt crisis. In 1983 we had to declare a debt moratorium, where we basically told the world we couldn’t pay our debts anymore.

After that, we lost international standing. We were cut off from foreign credit and investment. Domestic production stalled. With depleted foreign currency reserves, we also couldn’t import the goods we needed to get by.

All these events led to the severest economic contraction of the Philippine economy in 1984 and 1985 – the worst since World War II.

4) The Marcoses’ plunder worsened capital flight

Against this grim economic backdrop, the Marcoses exacerbated capital flight by siphoning huge sums off the public and private sectors throughout their stay in Malacañang.

To a large extent, their accumulation of ill-gotten wealth was made possible by the fact that a significant chunk of the country’s new borrowings was funneled through the public sector. The data show that the public sector accounted for less than 50% of all non-monetary debt in 1970, but more than 80% by 1985.

But the extent of the Marcoses’ plunder went well beyond the public sector. 

The late statesman and Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) chairman Jovito Salonga, in his book entitled Presidential Plunder (2000), listed down the many different “techniques” that the former president employed to acquire ill-gotten wealth, including:

• The creation of monopolies in vital industries placed under the control of his relatives and cronies
• The takeover of large public and private enterprises
• The raiding of the public treasury and government financial institutions
• The corruption of foreign aid and other forms of international assistance
• The use of shell and dummy corporations, foreign bank accounts, and pseudonyms to launder money

At the height of their power, the Marcoses wielded a staggering (even frightening) degree of influence and control throughout the Philippine economy.

At one point, Imelda Marcos was even quoted as saying: “We practically own everything in the Philippines, from electricity, telecommunications, airlines, banking, beer and tobacco, newspaper publishing, television stations, shipping, oil and mining, hotels and beach resorts, down to coconut milling, small farms, real estate and insurance.”

No wonder the Marcoses’ ill-gotten wealth reached an estimated $5 billion to $10 billion – the “Greatest Robbery of a Government” according to the Guinness World Records.

From 1987 to 2014, the PCGG – which President Duterte plans to abolish – already recovered $4 billion worth of such ill-gotten wealth. This is but a partial sum – the PCGG’s work is far from finished – yet this already amounts to half the capital that legally fled the country from 1971 to 1982.

Hence, one could say that the Marcoses bled the country of billions of dollars, at the time the country needed money the most.

The Marcoses’ plunder did not protect the economy

That billions of dollars worth of Filipinos’ money benefited a single family is already outrageous in itself.

But the fact that the Marcoses siphoned such money at the time the country desperately needed it – to pay for our huge external debt and to finance our economic development – is just cruel and depraved. It’s like stabbing the back of a person who was already suffering from a severe hemorrhage.

That’s why it’s difficult to swallow the explanation that the Marcoses “hid” money to “protect” the Philippine economy. Anybody who believes it – including the President – is complicit in efforts to revise history and gaslight the Filipino people to cast the Marcoses in a better, underserved light.

Let’s not sugarcoat it: what the Marcoses did was quite possibly the biggest presidential plunder in history.

And this act of economic treachery – which brought the Philippine economy to its knees and caused innumerable hardships for generations of Filipinos – does not merit any kind of deal or compromise between the government and the Marcoses.

If the Marcoses do return some of their wealth, we owe them nothing, not even our thanks. Instead, they owe the Filipino people the unconditional surrender of everything else that they plundered.

Finally, with all the bad things Ferdinand Marcos has done to this country, there’s hardly any reason to celebrate his birth centennial.

Instead, we might better use this occasion to remind ourselves of how one family singlehandedly changed the course of Philippine development – for the worse. – Rappler.com

The author is a PhD candidate at the UP School of Economics. His views are independent of the views of his affiliations. Thanks to Miharu Kimwell (PhD candidate at the UP School of Economics) and Kevin Mandrilla (UP Asian Center) for valuable comments and suggestions. Follow JC on Twitter: @jcpunongbayan. 

MANILA, Philippines — Historian and professor Lisandro 'Leloy' Claudio takes an objective look at the best and worst of the Marcos regime on the strongman's 100th birthday. Claudio acknowledges Marcos had great ideas, but points out where he failed in execution.

Watch it here on Rappler. – Rappler.com

MORE ON 'BASAGAN NG TRIP'

On using the term 'Filipino'
Is human rights relevant to Filipinos?
Whom to trust – journalists or social media stars?
What liberalism, LP, and yellow really mean 
Is Islam violent?
Why a depreciating Philippine peso might be a good thing
What's the government's problem with ride-sharing companies?

Prophets don't come often. But they play a crucial role. Their mandate is to deliver a message that strikes at the heart of people's realities.

The prophet's message though often runs counter to public opinion. And yet that is where their authenticity lies. If they are indeed sent by God, their message ought to be life-changing.

Their message, in other words, needs to be countercultural.

The legitimacy of prophets thus does not lie only in their divine gifts of healing, miracles, and visions. All these are important if only to testify to their divine calling. But there are, after all, many people who claim to accomplish these things.

In the history of religions, prophets have typically spoken against oppression, injustice, immorality, and murder. They have in effect challenged the status quo that benefited only a few.

The only problem is that prophets, rare as they are, often go unrecognized. Even Christ himself said that "no prophet is accepted in his own country."

Caveat

But this does not mean we should not seek them. These days we need prophets. But not only of the religious type.

Religious prophets have to be certain about their divine calling before they could even embark on a mission. But these days, a divine voice that tells us right from wrong is not even necessary.

We already know that murder is wrong. We know that corruption is wrong. We know that bribery is wrong. We know that justice that favors only those who can afford it is wrong. We know that sacrificing our children on the altar of national cleansing is wrong.

In other words we do not need God to reveal moral laws in an unequivocal manner. What we need instead is for people to speak against the majority's complacency.

For this to happen we need new prophets. Their bravery and fortitude will give us fresh hope that the soul of our society can be reclaimed. Regardless of the trouble, it is worth reclaiming.

In a recent piece, Leloy Claudio wrote about the need for an alternative dispensation to replace the bloodthirsty narrative of Philippine politics. In my view, his alternative dispensation calls for the rise of new prophets.

New dispensation

Prophecy, in this light, also speaks of the future. While prophets often come to preach a message of doom and judgment, they too have the power to inspire the next generation.

Jose Rizal himself admitted that he was not writing for his time: "I am writing for other ages. If this could read me, they would burn my books, the work of my whole life. On the other hand, the generation which interprets these writings will be an educated generation; they will understand me and say: Not all were asleep in the nighttime of our grandparents."

And so at this point we need new prophets to arise from every corner.

The Catholic Church has a prophetic tradition. But we also need to hear from other religious groups. Many of them have been fervent in prayer, but only for the salvation of souls. They have to start praying for the nation.

We also need to hear from politicians whose ideals remain unwavering. There are still some of them left.

But we need prophets to arise too from unexpected places.

We need young people to speak up. Too often we dismiss them for their naivety. But in reality, their innocence is what adults have regrettably lost.

We need to listen too to the poor among us. They have a lot to share, notwithstanding stories of suffering and injustices. And yet the learned among us think they know nothing.

Take heed

In the sociology of religion, prophets emerge either in moments of national crisis or when religion has lost its potency. Either way, their main function is to stir up revival.

Prophecy in this sense cannot be a figment of the imagination. Nor can it find its potency in pep talk.

For prophets first speak truth to power. They do so because they believe that the future can be so much better.

Ours seems to be a time of uncertainty, both political and religious. There is therefore no better time for prophets to arise.

We need new prophets to question the status quo. They need to challenge our society's unending narrative in search of a national redeemer. Political parties have come and gone but the plot of our national story remains the same: suffering begets redemption begets suffering.

More importantly, we need new prophets to breathe new life. We need to be convinced that the future can still be full of hope.

Unfortunately, prophets don't come often. So when they do, may the rest of us take heed. – Rappler.com

Jayeel S. Cornelio, PhD is a sociologist of religion at the Ateneo de Manila University. The National Academy of Science and Technology has named him one of the 2017 Outstanding Young Scientists. Twitter: @jayeel_cornelio

One hundred nineteen. A majority of the members of the House of Representatives, numbering 119 voted to slash the budget of the Commission of Human Rights to a token thousand pesos.

Get serious! It may be later than we think.

In a time when the human rights of our people are front and center of the concerns of the most vulnerable communities in our country, the majority in the House of Representatives decides in effect to demolish, a constitutional body tasked to promote and protect the human rights of all (not just the civil and political rights but the economic, social and cultural rights of our people, as originally intended in our basic charter). 

The 119 legislators wanted to send a clear message: you can only survive, if you keep your peace; you can do your job, only at your own peril. Though there are other steps that can be taken to overturn their hasty and vindictive action, their action already has a chilling effect. They have sent a signal so strong that it is couched in pesos and centavos: their intent is to weaken, if not suggest the virtual abolition of, a constitutional body mandated to protect the human rights of vulnerable citizens against the abuses of the state as well as non-state actors.  

At this particular juncture, its intent is to silence critical voices that point out the excesses of the policies of State in the execution of its “war on drugs”. Its method, however, merely exposes the legislature’s arrogance by demonstrating that by its sheer numbers they can do as they please and shut down the work of one of the few remaining independent bodies that could remind government authorities, public officials and the enforcers of the law, of their sacred responsibility to protect the human rights of all citizens, regardless of political affiliation, social standing, religious, or ethnic background.

Adding insult to injury, the leader of the 119 then turns around and says that the CHR’s budget can be restored if its chair, Chito Gascon, resigns– meaning to say that the threat of legislative blackmail is delivered to a vocal and consistent voice for human rights. It is a modern-day version of a Damocles sword to hang over the head of an institution so that henceforth you walk on eggshells.

Remember what’s in the heart of our 1987 Constitution

I am one of the few surviving framers of the 1987 Constitution, and one of two principal authors of the creation of the Commission on Human Rights.

I have always believed that the heart of our Constitution is the Article on Social Justice and Human Rights (Art. XIII). The context of the drafting of the Charter was the aftermath of the people power experience which brought down a despicable dictatorship. Our people took risks to end tyrannical rule which trampled the rights of our people, destroyed our democratic institutions and drained our resources by putting into the hands of a few the wealth created by hard work of the many.

The principal reason why the Commission on Human Rights was created was to ensure that an independent body existed not only to protect the rights of the aggrieved and the vulnerable, but to monitor the abuses of the authorities of State, to call them out, to propose remedies and to bring to the proper venues the cases that merited robust action.

If our dedication to human rights was to be real, then an institution was required to ensure the country’s compliance with those rights – the right to life, the right not to be tortured, the right not to be detained arbitrarily, the right to a fair trial, the right to exercise our responsibilities as citizens of a free country.

I recognize that the CHR is an imperfect institution, and just as politics is the art of imperfect creation, the CHR is an ongoing project that needs continual support and re-invention. It is work in progress that people power began but which needs a regular dose of constant citizens’ courage. It can only work if it practices a brave brand of action – no matter which party or which president is in power. In a sense, it is an institution that must have the temerity to say, “The emperor has no clothes!” if that indeed is the reality.

119 reasons that constitute early warning!

However, each cloud has its silver lining. What has taken place in full glare of the media is instructive for the future. Now, we know better.

There indeed are 119 reasons why this present Congress should not be allowed to convene as a constitutional body tasked to do the final draft of the basic charter, once a purported 25-member commission would have delivered a provisional draft.

This action taken by the lower house may in fact be the blessing in disguise we need: early warning signal to those wishing that we be “gifted” with a new Constitution by a Congress that may double as a Constituent Assembly. Do we really think that this Congress with a subservient majority can craft a Charter, independent and intelligent enough without bowing down to outside interests or powers? 

Given their lack of understanding of the concept of the comprehensive character of human rights and the independent role of an institution charged with overseeing the protection of those rights, can this Congress be trusted with framing the next basic law of the land?

Call to citizen-courage

Citizen is one of the most enduring subjects in a democracy. Citizen is both a role and a responsibility.  And, if citizens conspire to strengthen democratic space, to advance the practice of democratic debate and discussion, and mobilize to create change and constructive action, then that will be the true exercise of our power as a people. Fellow Citizens, there is nothing to fear, and all to gain if we regain our courage! – Rappler.com

The author is a framer of the 1987 Constitution, and was one of the principal authors in the creation of the Commission of Human Rights. He worked with Amnesty International, International Alert, and taught at both UP and the Ateneo. He now serves as consultant on formation at FEU-Diliman.

As part of his effort to fulfil a promise of change, President Rodrigo Duterte issued in December 2016 Executive Order No. 10 to organize the Consultative Committee (Con-Com) on constitutional reform.

The mandate of the Con-Com is to “study, conduct consultations, and review the provisions of the 1987 Constitution including but not limited to the provisions on the structure and powers of the government, local governance, and economic policies.”

However, this committee is still just a plan on paper. As per news reports, there is already a list of members. But their names have yet to be formally announced.

Nevertheless, both chambers of Congress have already mobilized their respective committees responsible for constitutional amendment and revision. Their hearings, however, have been focused mainly on determining the wisdom and necessity of federalizing government. This is understandable because shifting to a federal structure of government is the main motivation of the President in pushing for charter change.  

However, revising the Constitution actually encompasses a broader political reform effort. According to the United Nations Assistance to Constitution-making Processes (April 2009), “Constitution-making presents moments of great opportunity to create a common vision of the future of a state, the results of which can have profound and lasting impacts on peace and stability.”

It is essentially a reset button because the range of aspects in our political system that can be improved is wide open. Hence, charter change is our opportunity to address anomalies within our country’s overall political framework. This is our chance as one nation to address key development constraints. Yet with these opportunities come great risks as well – hence the need to shape the agenda toward evidence-based reforms.

A paragraph from the President’s second State of the Nation Address underscores the gravity of constitutional reform for all Filipinos, to wit: “Sadly, although we knew years ago that what was needed or [what we] ought to do, we did not do [it] because our idea of government was parochial and we could not rise above family, ethnic, and clan loyalties as well as loyalty to friends and co-workers. No one wanted to be a snitch. That is why we are one in saying that genuine change is what this country truly needs.”

As a first step, then, it is useful to first consider what critical reforms the country needs. This is the motivation that should shape whether and to what extent federalism will actually be part of the solutions.

Without belaboring this discussion, comprehensive studies point to deep governance challenges related to the malfunctioning political system, which has generally failed to produce more accountable leadership, and more predictable and stable policies. Instead, our political system has produced deep political concentration of power in the hands of political clans.

In the words of Alex Lacson, a known reformist, we kicked out a dictator in 1986, only to see him and his political clan replaced by many “mini-dictators” across the country. These leaders have since coveted even more power by enlarging their political clans’ political and economic roles in their respective regions. Empirical evidence shows that not only are these “dynasties in steroids” to be found in the poorest provinces and regions in the country, they are also directly causing deeper poverty.

Simply put, we are about to commence with overhauling our national charter under such dire circumstances. If we are to even consider federalism as a way forward, and first abstracting from other important debates on the process of deliberating this, we note here several reforms that would be critically important if this initiative is to carry any substantive weight at all.

Dynasty regulation and more inclusive leadership 

First, there must be prescriptions in the new Constitution that extensively regulate political parties and political dynasties. Changing the “rules of the game” under federalism without changing the composition of the main players has raised severe doubts on whether any change in governance will be forthcoming.

Political dynasties are expected to thrive under federalism if the main imbalances that produce dynasties are not amply corrected. It is difficult to imagine how some regional warlords, for example, will behave any differently if they are granted access to even greater amounts of public finance, and even more control on a broader array of governmental functions.

To address this problem, one proposal envisions including a dynasty regulatory mechanism that prevents the proliferation of “fat dynasties” (i.e., those politicians belonging to the same clan and simultaneously occupying positions of power).

Such a reform may stand a chance at being supported even by many “thinner” dynasties, to the extent that political clans can still field family members for office; but this will now be regulated so that the country builds a more inclusive leadership structure. More young leaders (even from non-political-clans) could then successfully vie for public office. Given our country will face our “youth peak” around 2050, and more and more young people will join our work force and voting population from now until then, this reform will help open the door for our best and brightest to serve their country.

Additionally, the Con-Com must ensure that their draft charter establishes a credible and coherent political party regulatory framework. Obviously, not all the issues of the existing set-up can be addressed here. But a structure more substantial than the present one should be self-evident. A provision that unequivocally prohibits turncoatism would be a welcome game-changer. Ridding the country of “balimbing politics” and forcing politicians to form parties based on reform agendas should also help refine campaign agendas and clarify the choices for our voters towards more informed election outcomes in the future.

Rebalance public finance

Second, there must be a prescription that will rebalance the public finance structure. Presently the central government controls over 80% of the country’s public spending and investments. This gross imbalance is clearly no longer tenable. Simply put, the amount of public money controlled by Malacañang ought to be drastically reduced.

Ostensibly, this reform goes hand in hand with decentralizing the management of government. Suffice to say, the ultimate goal here is to rationalize the President’s power over public finance. This can potentially break the grip of Imperial Manila over the rest of the country and end the pattern of a “winner-take-all President”.

Third and as a corollary reform to the previous one, the new charter must also dramatically redesign intergovernmental transfers. The fact is the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) is an outdated system that is not anchored on development outcomes, but on variables that are delinked from public sector performance (e.g., land size, population size, income).

The general view is that it has failed to help bring development to the countryside largely because it has not strengthened local governance on average, nor has it incentivized the mobilization of additional resources at the local level. It has, in effect, been part of a local-central dependency. It is part of the general malaise whereby national dynasties align themselves with many local warlords and dynasties, often perpetuating the status quo.

In order to align incentives toward greater accountability to match higher access to resources, we think it would be possible to design a similar graduation mechanism for local governments. In lieu of automatic intergovernmental transfers based on a rigid formula like the IRA, local government units with low income and relatively weak governance track records could be given access to conditional grants. The conditions could then be geared toward addressing governance conditions or improving allocations toward chronic poverty challenges.

And as local government units move to a slightly better governance track record and slightly higher income levels, they could be given access to unconditional (or less conditional) grants and matching grants. Hence, the goal here is to provide more flexibility in managing local public finance decisions as governance track records become more established and as reforms are built continuously over time.

Build a level economic playing field

Fourth, the new Constitution must open the economy to competition. Per the Philippine Development Plan 2017-2022: “Market competition promotes inclusive economic growth. It is a cross-cutting strategy to expand economic opportunities and increase access to such opportunities.” (See Chapter 16 National Competition Policy Framework) 

We believe that eeconomic liberalization can significantly increase economic opportunities for many Filipinos. Consider removing for instance, foreign ownership restrictions on secular educational institutions (See Article XIV, Section 4 (2)). It then becomes plausible to imagine a learning institution such as Newcastle University establishing a campus in Naga or Bacolod in addition to their campuses in Malaysia and Singapore.

And while investors in the field of education may not bring spectacular numbers in terms of FDI, if the scenario painted here does eventuate, a whole range of economic opportunities immediately becomes available to Filipinos in these areas. More critically, this outcome can also hold true for sectors in our economy, which are currently closed.

It is important to remember though that economic liberalization does not mean the absence of government regulation. The intervention of the state is still necessary to ensure trade practices are fair and just, labor and consumer rights are protected, and our national patrimony is preserved. Simply put, under an open economic regime the welfare of the community must still be the priority over and above everything else.

Needless to say, these enumerations do not cover all that needs to be reformed in the 1987 Constitution. Indeed, we encourage all Filipinos to add on to this list. More importantly, to make their propositions known to the Con-Com. It cannot be emphasized enough that we want the new charter to be more reflective of the times and responsive to the needs of all Filipinos. Therefore, we must be ready to be actively and directly involved in the drafting process.

To counter vested interests, all citizens must be prepared to rally around key reforms that will truly bring about change. Let’s begin that discussion of our non-negotiables sooner, rather than later. – Rappler.com

*Ron Mendoza is Dean and Associate Professor of Economics at the Ateneo School of Government and Michael Yusingco is a non-resident Research Fellow at ASOG. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Ateneo de Manila University. +AMDG

(Sing to the tune of Mariah Carey's "Through the Rain")

I can make it through the rain
Baha sa biyahe once again
On my own, and I know
Wala nang balak mag-suspend!

– Rappler.com

Artwork by Alejandro Edoria
Text by Marguerite de Leon

#FridayFeels is a cartoon series by the Rappler Creatives Team. Cathartic, light, but relevant, it's a welcome break from your heavy news feed! You can pitch illustration ideas by sending a message to the Rappler Facebook page. 

A tattoo on the back of the President's son Paolo Duterte is the latest to go into the box of telltale secrets of recent history. Its very concealment inspires suspicions attaching a smoking-gun quality to it.

In fact, similar secrets have attracted enough credibility unseen to contribute to the ouster of two presidents – Ferdinand Marcos and Joseph Estrada.

In Marcos' case, it was two kidney transplants, the first done, unsuccessfully, in 1983, around the time his archrival Benigno Aquino Jr was assassinated, the second the following year. The coincidence gave rise to generous speculations that Marcos, having been not merely out of commission but flat out, was incapable of plotting or ordering the assassination.

The transplants, like all their other martial-law secrets, remain unacknowledged by the Marcoses in spite of self-betraying evidence – Ferdinand became progressively clueless, bloated, and weakened toward his death, in 1989.

In fact, 4 years earlier two doctors had made firsthand confirmations of the transplants; one was the American surgeon who had himself taken part in the second surgery, the other a personal physician of Marcos’, a Filipino, who shortly after talking was killed, stabbed many times in an attack that the gasping Marcos regime blamed on the communists, its customary bogey.

Less than two years after his second transplant Marcos was deposed by a people-power street vigil and escaped with his family to Hawaii, in the United States. They had taken loot estimated at 10 million dollars, mostly unrecovered to this day.

Joseph Estrada was accused of plunder himself, though not on any scale comparable with that in Marcos’ case. That's probably why, once Estrada was booted out of the presidency, in midterm, in 2001, also by people power, public interest in his own case all but dissolved. Even his judicial conviction became anticlimactic.

His story reached its dramatic height at his impeachment trial in the Senate. An envelope supposedly containing a most damning document was offered in evidence, but its unsealing was voted down on privacy grounds. In protest, throngs poured onto the same stretch of highway, EDSA, as 15 years before, against Marcos, and forced Estrada to quit.

Subsequently, he was found guilty in court and sentenced to 40 years in prison. Only P700 million in money and a prime piece of property, valued all together at a mere quarter of the 4.1 billion pesos worth of booty he allegedly had amassed, were judged due the state. He was pardoned by his successor, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and voted mayor of the nation's capital city. The legendary envelope was forgotten, meanwhile.

A mere provincial-city vice mayor, Paolo Duterte is definitely not in the same class as Marcos or Estrada, but Papa Rodrigo is. Not only is he also President, he is a professed Marcos emulator and has Estrada – and, as it happens, his pardoner, Arroyo, too – for a political ally. But still, if Senator Antonio Trillanes’ information is right, Paolo's secret puts him in an especially notorious class of his own.  

Implicated in the smuggling of all sorts of merchandise, drugs included, and called to a Senate inquiry, Paolo, looking keen to show casual confidence, is quick to answer Trillanes’s question: Does he have a tattoo on his back?

“Yes.”

Before proceeding with his questioning, Trillanes specifies what sort of tattoo he’s looking for – one designed as a code of membership of the transnational Chinese criminal syndicate Triad (not unlike the Sicilian Mafia or the Japanese Yakuza). He goes on to challenge Paolo Duterte to prove him wrong.

It’s a moment of truth, an all-in battle for credibility between not only Paolo but more so his father and his nemesis, Trillanes himself. A bared back decides it, at a public forum, on national television. But...“No way!”

Paolo is not baring or biting; neither is he admitting or denying anything, let alone any Triad connection. He told the press some days after his Senate appearance he's a graduate of banking and finance; he cannot be fooled.

At any rate, once he dodged Trillanes' challenge, Paolo Duterte, academic specialization notwithstanding, could not stop his secret tattoo going into the ledgers under the same column as Ferdinand Marcos' transplanted kidneys and Joseph Estrada's unopened envelope. – Rappler.com

Pressing are the current times when students are led to believe the “convenient truths” on the President Marcos debate. Despite substantial studies proving the oppression during the Martial Law period, the students’ emotions are won over by apologists whose tweaked narratives renounce common sense.

In the age of devaluing reason and glorifying propaganda, literature teachers should be among the front runners in advocating a precise reading of the national history.

Revisionism is in the heart of the post-truth era, where people resort to false information that sits well on their biases instead of wielding academic measures to pursue wider historical dimensions. Bedeviling our nation’s past allows the tyrant to seize the people’s imagination to topple the liberty our forefathers fought for. It delays discourse. It knows no respect for identity. It shatters truth, a basic element of humanity and progress. It triggers a collective amnesia.

In one way or another, the concept of post-truth is what we wish for. We acknowledge the forces of colonialism and political agenda behind historical interpretation, thus we demand legitimacy. But we begin to fret the moment the government itself initiates the practice of forgetting a memory that needs to be preserved, and replace the gaps with untruth.

In the book, A Duterte Reader, UP Manila professor Cleve Arguelles uncovers the administration’s mnemonic regime pivoting to the counter-narrative of moving on from People Power. For him, cultural institutions and the silence of history textbooks have not succeeded enough in putting across the value of Martial Law, prolonging the war on memory. No amount of apathy and denial can retrieve what we will leave behind.

***

Since false claims are crucial in public discourse, it has permeated educational institutions. Now, some students are proud to share their lack of curiosity, or one at the back would retort, Sir, what can you say about Marcos being able to edify architectures we enjoy today? Another kid would add (and I paraphrase badly), Our country was the Tiger Economy of Asia, until elite forces wiped out the best president we ever had. Somebody would share that Cory has a role in the Ninoy assassination. Then the bias card. How are literature teachers supposed to respond to this way of reasoning?

While mathematics teaches us that 4 is the answer to two plus two, literature is designed to be taught in an inherently political classroom. Not a single poem is devoid of ideological underpinnings, especially if it is produced in the time of authoritarian crisis.

Protest writings are hinged upon resisting the ignoble restraint of expression. Dictators are quick to harass literature for fear that stories would widen our manner of seeing. But writers persist, for in trying times art is indispensable. If this is the atmosphere of the text the teachers are tasked to deal with, teachers should uphold their integrity based on wider conceptual handle, awareness on the issue, and empathy.

Take for example, Merlie Alunan’s The Bells Count in Our Blood, a poem that initially comes to mind among writings that represent the Martial Law period.

In 1985, Dumaguete City lost Father Rudy Romano, and for 32 years, no justice was served for the priest-social worker who selflessly served the oppressed and the vulnerable. As a way of choosing not to forget the priest and his unfortunate plight during the Marcos administration, the community would ring the bells for him every 8 in the evening until he is found. The poem speaks about how the disappearance of one body marks a malady in society, affecting us all, more so if we are cradled with fear and silence. The constant ringing of the bells summons a memory to “keep us from decay.”

The poem is as slender as a bell, but it must hold fire as well. To discuss this apolitically and proceed to the next chapter when difficult words are unlocked is a disservice to the message and context the poem conveys. In analyzing literary pieces, teachers must encourage students to take part in a research project encompassing different fields of social sciences. This method allows art to demystify layers of humanity which are instrumental in molding our worldview and curbing our prejudices. Besides, teachers should ask the right questions that would strengthen values and be wary of the students’ respect for human rights.

Are teachers fulfilling their primary role as shapers of young minds if students have acquired knowledge and skills but haven’t developed social responsibility? Students are a massive sector who can help impose the destiny of our nation, and it matters what type of leaders they vote, what sort of biases they cling to. In a body politic that ignores the grief of Martial Law atrocities and swaps the definition of a hero, it is not enough that literature teachers instruct students to identify metaphors.

***

People commonly say that democracy should start inside the class, but democracy has become an abused terminology. It is invoked as an excuse to stop listening to dissent. It is used to argue based on lies. And most of all, it is a tool for excluding ideologies that afflict one’s pride. With this, a teacher should assist the students’ attitude toward life, allowing them to ask: Does my opinion constrain justice, or does it incite false consciousness?

Should teachers be worried when students name them names? A teacher from Mindanao critical of the government’s policies is called un-Mindanawon. Disobedient. Dilawan. On false dichotomies, Arundhati Roy has this to say: “It’s a failure of the imagination. An inability to see the world in terms other than those the establishment has set out for you [...] If you don’t love us, you hate us. If you’re not Good, you’re Evil. If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorist.”

If there could be one lesson from anti-Marcos writings, it should be respect, and teachers should strive to put this lesson forward. – Rappler.com

Kloyde A. Caday is one of the contributors of A Duterte Reader: Critical Essays on Rodrigo Duterte’s Early Presidency (ed. Nicole Curato), published by BUGHAW and distributed by Ateneo de Manila University Press,. He teaches literature. Follow him on Twitter: @kloydecaday

An imam (mosque leader) wailing in prayer and the city mayor weeping during his turn to speak before an assembly of civil society organizations was my first long look at the crisis in Marawi City in early August.

I was asked by an international humanitarian organization to help in the media and advocacy tasks of its Marawi conflict response team deployed in Iligan City. As I had stints like this in the past, I said yes to a month-long work engagement. I thought the team was huge. It turned out there were only two women. I became the third one.

I stayed in a windowless room in a small hotel in a quiet neighborhood that becomes noisy with people conversing, banging doors or kids running around, not to mention a handful of other humanitarian responders from international organizations also staying in the hotel.

There was one night when a male guest taking a phone call started crying. The hotel is small so one can hear phone rings and conversations along the hallway. The man wailed the entire night. When I asked the receptionist the following day about what it was about, he said the male guest was a displaced Maranao whose relative who went missing after the siege was reported dead.

For the first two weeks, the cry and wail of Marawi became pervasive as I met evacuees during the conduct of a survey where I helped in asking them questions about where they lived in Marawi City, their property, livelihood, how they manage their cash, how they are doing in the evacuation camps and what they want.

Women and girls cried as they inadvertently recounted their suffering during the firefight and how they escaped. The men couldn't hide their tears as well even to strangers. The stories were overwhelming. I wondered if this is the cry of the whole of Mindanao or parts of it that have never seen peace.

It's been two decades since I was in Marawi City. I can't recall the news coverage back then, but female journalists were required to cover their heads. I remember the beauty and laidback life of the city, its cool weather and the distinct physical features of the Maranaos.

Now many years later, as I traveled to evacuation camps in Lanao del Sur and del Norte, I saw a different Marawi. I transformed my shawl into a veil, first out of respect and second, so that I can blend with the women in all types of Muslim garb including the ones they playfully call "ninjas" or those wearing all-black abaya (cloak worn over clothing to cover the entire body), hijab (head scarf) and niqab (a face veil that leaves only the eyes uncovered).

It was their first time to experience a crisis this big and to be dislocated from their homes, so the evacuees asked me questions that I didn't have answers to: until when are they staying temporarily in tents and in host families; when are they going home?

My headscarf didn't do much as I spoke in Tagalog and English. I asked help from the Maranao-speaking humanitarian workers to give a semblance of an explanation to the situation.

This is what struck me the most – the humanitarian workers. There are two kinds – the ones who travel to the conflict area, usually from Manila-based international organizations or based in Mindanao who are deployed to any conflict area facing a crisis, and those from local and community organizations who know the terrain, language, history, culture and politics of the area.

The organizations run the gamut of development, advocacy, humanitarian aid, peace, gender, youth, health, environment and human rights themes. For weeks, our lives were intertwined in evacuation site visits, meetings, psychosocial sessions, passing through checkpoints in and out of Iligan City and eating any available food with the evacuees or on the roadside.

My work included anything that has to be done for the day, including starting a security briefing for legal investigators because the training officer who was supposedly 45 minutes away by plane was delayed. My teammates attended to multiple meetings and did sitreps (situation reports) containing detailed information about what really was going on. When I read the sitreps, I realized that media reports are only barely scratching the underneath of the surface.

Stress, an occupational hazard, stays in the cycle of work. Our team leader panic eats at the end of the day then returns to what she's working on back in the hotel. The other teammate goes out with new friends and plays her ukulele or participates in an open mic bar, but heads back to the hotel to beat the martial law curfew.

I have been terrified, not by guns or bombs, but by the sheer reality of people's lives that are convoluted and unbearable. I've been into this act before both in journalism and in short-term jobs documenting experiences of people for international development organizations. The only difference is that I didn’t bring large amounts of empathy as I parachuted to places. The empathy in journalism is fleeting compared with humanitarian work. I have wept many times because of what I've encountered.  

In journalism, they say that no story is worth dying for. The unspoken but universal rule of journalists to be cynical, or to be "honest and unmerciful" (to borrow from a film) still works, but I think the need to empathize is important.

Humanitarian workers leave their loved ones to listen to people with disrupted lives and to put some direction to the best of their efforts, even if government does not respond with the same pace. An official of the government task force talked about installing large TV screens in evacuation centers "so that the evacuees can listen to the President's words" when all they needed were more reasonable provisions of food and basic needs.

In a world that is not equal and is increasingly challenged by conflict, humanitarian workers face death defying missions and the highest levels of risks and threats to fight the battles that people cannot fight on their own.

Their tireless determination to make a difference, to make the world a better place, or to save it outright, is greater than their fear. There is no other way I can put it but their self-sacrifice is sublime.

I once told the two women in the team not to forget to leave something to themselves. But on my 3rd week, we all got sick of fever and respiratory infections, and noticed it too in other humanitarian workers as we were coughing together.

A doctor asked me to pull out as I needed to recuperate. I left the two teammates a few days before my end of deployment date as they had to stay -- there was no plan B.  

I left Iligan City with its roadsides displaying congratulatory ads of a new nurse or a lawyer passing the bar, alongside slogans of "Bangon, Marawi." I left the city's bustle with its increased population and the fully armed soldiers walking the streets. I already miss the turmeric rice and the varieties of fried chicken.

In Manila, I continue to receive text messages from young Muslims saying they are college graduates and they need a job very badly and if I could recommend them. I connect them to people and organizations I know, wish them good luck and that God or Allah bless them always. They thank me and respond with happy emojis. – Rappler.com

Diana G. Mendoza is a freelance journalist.

I couldn't believe it – someone had just sent me an email saying I was a trashy bitch.

I ignored it; I didn't want to deal with it. It probably wasn't meant for me. But the next day, I received another email attacking my son. I felt sick to my stomach. Who was sending me these emails and why?

As much as I was trying hard to deny it, I had a strong feeling about the person behind the damaging emails. My husband had just ended an affair and he was back home. It could only be her.

I was right. The scorned mistress just couldn't move on. For about 4 years, she tormented me and my family with damaging emails, online posts, and even text messages. She would even send goons to our home to threaten us.

My husband couldn't deal with it. At the time, I was still heartbroken and grappling with the reality that our relationship had reached such a low point. I felt betrayed.

In the meantime, the scorned mistress was doing everything she could to get my husband back. For years, she attacked me online. For someone who had always been sure of herself, I really felt helpless and downright stupid. The scorned mistress had waged war and for some time, it seemed like she was winning it.

I was too scared. I didn't know what to do. The scorned mistress was incessantly threatening me. She knew where I worked. She knew the places I frequented. To make matters worse, she began sending malicious emails to my workplace.

It seemed like she had the power and my husband was simply allowing her to do whatever she wanted. To this day, I still cannot forget how lost my heartbroken husband was when he decided to leave her. He didn't know what to do – he was so scared of her. The whole situation was just ridiculously messy. If it were a movie, the characters in it would all seem pretty stupid, myself included.

The final straw

After 3 years of being bullied online, I finally got the nerve to do something about it. No more denials. No more hiding. No more feeling scared. The final straw came when the scorned mistress created a false account on Facebook.

She posted everything on the false account, scandalizing me and my whole family. Then she sent private messages to all my friends, family members, and even officemates. You just got to hand it to her – the scorned mistress really went out of her way to know everyone in my social network. She had everything planned out.

The scorned mistress went as far as posting publicly that my dear old husband couldn't bear to sleep with me. She tried to bait me with slander, hoping I would react.

I was hurting and even felt ashamed but I never gave her the pleasure of acknowledging her existence. I never replied to her emails nor did I ever react to her posts. My weapon was silence.

I kept a record of all her emails. With the help of almost everybody who received messages from the scorned mistress, I was able to collect evidence that could incriminate her. It turned out the mistress was not just scorned but was stupid as well for thinking that she could get away with cyberbullying.

Fighting back the right way

It’s true – there really is light at the end of the tunnel. I saw it when I finally got the nerve to fight back.

There was no way I was going to play her game. It was too low for me to get on social media platforms to let more people know about my husband’s wild romance. I had had it and I was going to fight back the right way: I hired a lawyer.

With the help of our lawyer, we were able to get Facebook to retrieve critical information on the fake account. Facebook was very helpful. We reported the abuse and almost immediately, Facebook sent us critical information like IP addresses and physical locations.

Thanks to Whois.com, we were able to track down the internet service provider of the scorned mistress. It turned out that she created the fake Facebook account right in the comfort of her workplace. Our lawyer had enough evidence to incriminate her.

Finally, in 2014, the scorned mistress was silenced. A Demand To Cease And Desist was sent to her. There was no way she could fight back.

I am sharing this experience to let everybody know that there is life after being cyberbullied. There are right ways to retaliate. If you are ever in doubt, consult a lawyer.

Keep in mind that cyberbullies make use of free online platforms. These platforms, in my personal experience, won't tolerate abuse, so don’t feel like you’ve lost the war. Truth be told, the cyberbullies are always on the losing end. – Rappler.com

Franchie Gomez is a housewife. She wrote this piece to help wives facing the same challenge, and to let them know that they can fight back without losing their dignity.

(First of two parts)

The Philippine presidency has been visibly changed by the rise of Rodrigo Duterte. The changes have, in fact, been the subject of much scrutiny by Duterte supporters and oppositors, and, by non-partisan entities. A little over a year after the presidential elections in May 2016, there seems to be general consensus that Duterte is one of a kind, at least in the post-Marcos era. Nobody seems to be asking, however, if change has reached the legislative branch.

New president, not-so-new Congress

I think people are merely assuming that the Philippine Congress, as an institution, has changed because of the "supermajority" and the all-Mindanaoan leadership in both the Senate and the House of Representatives – but has it really changed? To what extent and towards what direction?

To tackle these questions, I first revisited the 2004 study of Coronel, Chua, Rimban and Cruz entitled "The Rulemakers: How the Wealthy and Well-Born Dominate Congress."

In the study, the authors claimed: "The typical Filipino legislator is male, middle-aged, and college educated, most likely with a degree in law. He has previously held a local government post and is a member of a political family, with a sibling, father or grandfather who had been voted into public office in the past. There is one chance in two that he is related to a former legislator."

"He is also into business and has multiple income sources. He has property for rent, earns salary from a profession, and has investments in company shares. He is well off, with a net worth (most likely understated in his statement of assets) in the P10M range. And the likelihood is that the longer he stays in Congress, the richer he becomes."

From the data that I have gathered, I argue that the current 17th Congress essentially remains the same not just in composition but also in terms of patterns of behavior, internal dynamics, and relations with the executive branch. While there have been some shifts especially in political alliances because of the Duterte presidency, these shifts have neither eliminated nor weakened the fundamental character of the Philippine legislature. Entry is still via political families, alliances are still determined by who is the incumbent president, voting on laws is still shaped by vested interests and not ideological unities, and money still speaks. Moreover, the typical legislator is still male and middle-aged.

I further argue that when a traditional, elite-dominated Congress is combined with an authoritarian-populist president, the former loses its organizational integrity and becomes merely subservient to a strengthened presidency. Congress remains functional but its institutional character is severely diminished.

The 17th Congress, when viewed in tandem with the Duterte presidency, reveals the phenomenon of perverted pluralism (elitism) combining with perverted populism (one-man rule). Indeed, this signals "change," albeit from bad to worse. It is not possible for the combination of two perverted systems to constitute positive change.

Data presentations in this piece are in summary form but such were culled from information regarding individual representatives and senators – sourced from official government data mostly from the websites of the House and the Commission on Elections. The Rappler research unit was most helpful in gathering data regarding the congressional representatives. A colleague at the Ateneo Political Science Department also lent assistance in researching on the senators. The points of analysis, however, are all mine. The errors, thus, are also all mine.

Perverted pluralism: the elite as 'the people'

The current House of Representatives has a total of 297 seats, 4 of which are vacant. The Senate, meanwhile, has a total of 24 seats with only one seat vacant.

This section examines the composition of Congress in relation to the larger Philippine population it supposedly seeks to represent.

Old boys club

Based on the 2015 Census of Population, the population of the Philippines is 100,981,437. Of the 100.98 million Filipinos, 50.3 million or 49.6% are female while 51.2 million or 50.4 million are male. The gender ratio is thus more or less 50-50.

The House of Representatives, however, is male-dominated. Roughly 70% of the representatives are male and 30% are non-male. As Figure 1 below shows, of the 293 sitting representatives, 206 are male, 86 are female, and one is transgender.

The Senate is also male-dominated. Figure 2 shows that 17 senators or 71% are male while 6 senators or 25% are female.

Congress is dominated not just by men but by middle-aged men as the median age of representatives is 52 years. Figure 3 below shows that while representatives in the age range of 35 to 49 years old comprise the largest percentage at 34.3%, the combined cohorts of representatives in the age range of 50-60 years old and those 60 years and above make up roughly 60% of the total number of representatives. Those who are in the 25-34 age range – those who can technically be considered as part of the "youth" sector – comprise only 4.3%.

In the Senate, 46% or 11 senators are in the 35-49 age range. Meanwhile, 25% or 6 senators are in the 50-60 age range and those 60 years and above also comprise 25%. Thus, senators aged 50 and above comprise 50% of the Senate.

These figures are in stark contrast to what's happening in terms of our society's age structure. According to official statistics and as shown in Figure 5, Filipinos are relatively young. More than half of the population, 51.8 million or 51.3%, are in the age range of 0 to 24 years. Those in the 25-34 age range comprise 15.7 million or 15.5% of the population while those in the 34-50 age range comprise 17.8 million or 17.7%. Those in the 50-59 age range, meanwhile, are 8.0 million or 8.1% while those in the 60 and above age range are 7.5 million or 7.4% of the total population.

Political dynasties still dominant

Figure 6 below shows that 140 representatives or 47% are first termers. Of these, 111 representatives or 37.3% are "first termers" while 29 or 9.7% are "returning" first termers. The rest of the 153 representatives are second or third termers.

Theoretically, the presence of first termers in Congress suggests the possibility of new dynamics. New entrants are assumed to be out to prove themselves worthy to be legislators and are thus potential sources of independent ideas and critical thinking.

At first glance, the figures suggest that a new dynamic could be expected from the House of Representatives given the large number (almost half) of first termers. A closer look at the names of these first termers, however, will reveal that they are actually old timers.

Among the "returning" first termers, for example, are very familiar names and practically mainstays of Congress and/or local government units: Pantaleon Alvarez, Antonio Floirendo, Robert Ace Barbers, Prospero Pichay, Edcel Lagman, Joey Salceda, Arnulfo Fuentebella, Danilo Suarez. Even among the "first termers" (i.e first-timers in the House), there are very familiar names: Vilma Santos-Recto and Pia Cayetano.

Figure 7 below shows that the 17th Congress is still dominated by political dynasties with almost 64% or 190 representatives having links to dynasties. Of the 190, 131 or 44.1% have relatives in another position, and 13.1% have had relatives who were politicians in the past.

There are 103 representatives or 34.6% who are not members of political dynasties. This seems to be an encouraging development. A closer look at the composition of this cohort, however, will show that almost 40% of the 103 are party-list representatives – which really should be the case, given that the party-list system was meant to reform the composition of the House from elite/dynastic to non-elite/non-dynastic.

The data also reveal that even among party-list representatives, there are those with relatives in political posts. Examples include Jericho Nograles of PBA who is the brother of Davao City 1st District Representative Karlo Nograles, Mariano Velarde of Buhay who succeeded his brother Rene Velarde, Emmeline Aglipay-Villar of Diwa who is the wife of incumbent congressman-turned-DPWH Secretary Mark Villar, Vini Ortega of Abono who is the wife of La Union Governor Pacoy Ortega, Anna Marie Villaraza-Suarez of Alona who is the wife of incumbent Quezon Governor David Suarez and daughter in-law of incumbent minority head Danilo Suarez, and Tricia Velasco-Catera of Mata who is the sister of Marinduque Representative Lord Allan Velasco.

The data also show that the young in Congress are not a new breed of politicians, and, in fact, represent a new generation of dynasts. Many of those who are young – below 40 years old – are members of political dynasties: Mandaluyong City Representative Alexandria Gonzales who succeeded husband Neptali Gonzales, Manila 5th District Representative Amanda Christina Bagatsing who succeeded father Amado Bagatsing, Valenzuela City 1st District Representative Wes Gatchalian who is the brother of Senator Sherwin Gatchalian, Pangasinan 4th District Representative Christopher de Venecia who succeeded mother Gina de Venecia, Quirino Representative Dakila Cua who is the son of Governor Junie Cua, Cebu 1st District Representative Gerald Anthony Gullas who succeeded Eduardo Gullas, Zamboanga del Norte 1st District Representative Seth Frederick Jalosjos who is the nephew of Dapitan Mayor Rosalina Jalosjos, Camiguin Representative Xavier Jesus Romualdo who is the son of Camiguin Governor Maria Luisa Romualdo, and Lanao del Norte 1st District Representative Mohamad Khalid Dimaporo who is the son of Lanao del Norte 2nd District Representative Abdullah Dimaporo.

In the Senate, more than 50% of senators have links to political dynasties. Of the 24 senators, 13 have links: 8 have relative/s in another position, 5 succeeded a politician-relative. Eleven, meanwhile, have no links to dynasties.

House of millionaires

The House of Representatives, being the lair of political dynasties, is composed largely of rich people. Figure 8 below shows that there are two representatives in Congress who are billionaires and 6 who have a net worth in the range of P500 million-P999 million. Ironically, these two representatives who are billionaires – Michael Romero of 1-Pacman and Emmeline Aglipay-Villar of Diwa – are party-list representatives who are supposed to represent the "marginalized." The figure also shows that there are only 6 representatives who are not millionaires and that 50% of the representatives have net worths in the range of P10 million-P49 million.

The 24-member Senate (including now Foreign Secretary Alan Peter Cayetano), meanwhile, is composed of two billionaires, 4 millionaires, and 18 multimillionaires.

Again, the situation is in stark contrast to the larger reality. Data on the income structure of Filipino families show that the upper class – obviously dominant in the Philippine legislature – comprises only 0.21% or 21,700 families of the total Philippine population. The largest section of the population – 74.3% or 14 million – actually come from the lower class, not the upper class. Moreover, 20.5% or 4.05 million families can be considered poor.

All the foregoing data suggest that the current Congress, like previous Congresses, represent mostly the upper echelon of Philippine society. To this day, the Philippine Congress is not representative of the diversity that exists in Philippine society and reflects instead, only the powerful sections. It doesn't even represent the majority of the population. It is indeed ironic that the majority of "the people" are young, non-male, and lower class-poor while the "representatives of the people" are old, male, and upper class. While the legislature is technically democratic and pluralist in that its members were chosen, theoretically, through free and fair competition, in reality, its composition is limited to those of the elite. This, to me, is a perversion of pluralism.

(To be concluded)

– Rappler.com

Paano pinahahalagahan ng Kamara ang karapatang pantao? Halagang ’sanlibong piso.

P1,000 – sapat itong pambili ng 5 ream ng papel at isang kahon ng Mongol No. 2. Hindi ito sapat pambayad ng kuryente o tubig ng isang opisina. Kulang din itong pambili ng pang-isang buwang 3-in-1 na kape sa opisina. It ain't much.

Sumbat ni Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez sa Commission on Human Rights: “Sino ba nagpapasuweldo sa inyo, ’di ba ang estado? Eh ang lagi mo pinupuna, ang estado, pero sila naman ay pinoprotektahan ang karapatan ng mga biktima. Ikaw, ano’ng ginagawa mo, ang protektahan ang mga kriminal?”

Sabi pa ng Speaker, kung hindi mabubuwag ang CHR, tanggalan na lang ng budget. At kung gusto daw ni CHR Chair Chito Gascon ng mas malaking pondo, dapat siyang mag-resign.

Hindi ba nauunawaan ng mga kongresista ang mandato ng CHR? Anong parte ng Konstitusyon na lumikha sa “independent commission” ang di malinaw? Hindi ba nila gagap ang konsepto ng check and balance?  

Suspetsa natin, hindi ito kakulangan ng kukote upang umintindi ng mga konseptong minamani lamang ng mga abogado at mambabatas. Ito’y kakulangan ng tibay ng dibdib na humindi sa mga makapangyarihang Speaker of the House. 

Ito’y sa kabila ng walang-kurap na pagdeklara ni Foreign Secretary Alan Peter Cayetano apat na buwan ang nakalilipas sa isang report sa United Nations Human Rights Council na itataas ng administrasyong Duterte ang budget ng CHR, bilang pagtataguyod sa karapatang pantao. Anyare?

Ayon kay Agnes United Nations (UN) rapporteur Agnes Callamard, ang CHR ay mahalagang institusyon para sa “human rights protection, the rule of law, accountability.”

Ayon sa isang kongresista, ang near-zero budget ay isa lamang simbolo ng pagkayamot ng Mababang Kapulungan sa Commission on Human Rights. Ibabalik naman daw ng Senado ang budget, habang ang bicameral deliberations ang huling mapagpasya.  

Pampalubag-loob na lamang na hindi tuluyang mapipilayan ang CHR sa pagdadramang ito ng Kamara. Hindi ito mangyayari habang may isang matapang na pinunong maggigiya sa komisyon sa gitna ng atakeng politikal ng administrasyon. 

Ang trahedya ay may 114 sa mga mga inihalal nating kongresista na bumoto para sa budget slash habang may nasa-100 na nanahimik. 

Ang trahedya ng P1,000 budget ay nahubaran na ang Kamara de Representante bilang isang rubber stamp ng ehekutibo. 

Ang trahedya ay ang pagde-demonize sa human rights bilang kalaban ng isang popular na presidente.

Ang trahedya ay ang mga kongresista natin mismo ang sumisira sa mga demokratikong institusyon na isinumpa nilang itataguyod. 

Nitong a-dose ng Setyembre, isang araw matapos ang ika-100 kaarawan ni Ferdinand Marcos, ’sanlibong punyal ang ibinaon sa puso ng demokrasya. – Rappler.com

The Sandiganbayan Fifth Division granted bail to Senator Jinggoy Estrada, ruling that there was no strong evidence against him. Using a straightforward reasoning, the anti-graft court ruled he was not the “main plunderer.” The Sandiganbayan also ruled that he, as a senator, is not a flight risk, and thus poses no danger of escaping. Finally, the court also noted that he had languished in jail for 3 years, even without being convicted, which presumably violates his constitutional rights to presumption of innocence and speedy trial.

At face value, there is nothing legally wrong with these arguments. In fact, long-time advocates of criminal justice reform have been railing against the problem of prolonged trial detention of unconvicted inmates.

The length of trial procedures in the Philippines, sadly, is one of the longest in the world. In one local jurisdiction in Metro Manila in July 2017, for example, 580 of 4,054 (or 14%) detained inmates had languished in jail for more than 3 years. Twenty-one of them had stayed in jail for more than 10 years. The longest staying inmate during that time had languished in jail for 15 years, 4 months, and 22 days. All these inmates are undergoing trial and are presumed innocent. Majority of these inmates are charged with non-violent offenses. In this same jurisdiction, it took 1,274 days (or 3.5 years) for 735 inmates who were detained in this jail between 2007 and 2016 to be declared not guilty. Thus, they had stayed in jail that long only to be found innocent. One inmate was acquitted after languishing in jail for 12 years.

Thus, long-time advocates had been begging the judicial system to look into this nagging problem. The delay in trial procedures translates to jail population congestion. The male facility of this jurisdiction has a rated capacity of 280 inmates but accommodates close to 3,200 inmates. The female facility has a rated capacity of 80 inmates but now houses 850 inmates. These is above 1,000% over-congestion, a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions.

Jail overcrowding, on the other hand, translates to a host of other related problems in jail management. These include insufficient custodial supervision, limited rehabilitation programming, and exposure to criminogenic jail environment. While inside the jail, inmates learn new tricks in the criminal trade and learn how to beat the legal system, which increase their risk of recidivism. Some of the more moneyed and influential inmates, even if they committed heinous crimes, eventually find loopholes in the prolonged procedure, and get themselves freed.

All these factors eventually translate into a distrust of the legal system as it becomes inefficient, iniquitous, and corrupt. The Filipino public thus becomes legally cynical. This cynicism is manifested by such notions as “it is okay to kill drug dealers because they will simply beat the justice system anyway,” “It is okay to kill the criminals because they just keep on returning to jail,” or “It is okay to kill addicts because they had been warned and did not change ways.” These narratives are accepted by an angry public and had been masterfully stroked to justify extra judicial killings.

If the Sandiganbayan can rule for the release of Senator Jinggoy Estrada based on the fact that he had languished in jail for more than 3 years, then all courts nationwide should look at the cases of ordinary Filipinos who had languished in jail for far longer period, under harsher conditions, and for even less serious offenses. If they can release Senator Jinggoy Estrada, who was alleged to have plundered millions of pesos, then they should release an inmate charged with theft of P20,000 who had languished in a local jail for 4 years, 3 months, and 7 days, and many other inmates similarly situated.

There is nothing legally wrong with the bail release of Senator Jinggoy Estrada. But if we apply this legal reasoning to one Filipino senator who was charged with a non-bailable offense of plunder, then we should apply this to every Filipino who languish in our decrepit overcrowded jails. Otherwise, the thought that he was released – simply because he could beat the legal system, because his lawyers were able to use legal gobbledygook, because he was finally connected to the dispenser of the political power – will simply further the cynicism about the legal system. This selective justice will further erode trust in our legal institutions.

The issue is not about his release on bail. He deserves it because he had languished without being convicted.

The issue is the selective application of this legal reasoning. The issue is selective justice that this current government supposedly rails against.

By releasing Senator Jinggoy Estrada, this current government is making a mockery of the criminal justice even more. Paradoxically, this government utilizes the narrative of a “failed justice system” to rationalize its extrajudicial killings. As one inmate said: iginisa sa sariling mantika.

This should not be an issue of Dutertards versus Yellowtards. This is the issue of ordinary Filipinos whose elitist government, past and present, continue to fail them. – Rappler.com 

Raymund E. Narag, PhD, is assistant professor at the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Southern Illinois University Carbondale.

(Read Part 1 here.)

Perverted populism: the President as 'the people'

Elsewhere I have written that both pluralism and populism have positive values especially when viewed as "expressions of the people's will." In pluralism, the people's will is expressed through duly-elected representatives and this will is articulated through laws. In populism, the people's will is expressed through a "popular" leader – a leader who supposedly knows what the people need and want.

The downside of both systems is often revealed when power dynamics are not questioned. In pluralism, power dynamics are undervalued so much so that channels for pluralism, such as Congress, are deemed inclusive of all sections of society, when, in fact, the channels are dominated by only one section/the elite. In populism, power dynamics are overvalued and often lodged in a strong man instead of strong institutions. The latter explains the rise and continued popularity of President Duterte. It has been argued, in fact, that President Duterte is the answer to the problems brought about by a perverted pluralism/elitism – hence, the anti-dilawan discourse of the DDS camp.

In this section, I examine the ways by which the perverted pluralism of Congress has combined with the perverted populism of the Duterte presidency. While populist leaders often undermine or altogether disregard pluralist institutions like legislative bodies, the populist Duterte has simply captured the Philippine Congress.

Shifting allegiances

The populism of President Duterte has been evidently bolstered by a subservient Congress. While Congresses in previous regimes have always aligned with incumbent presidents and party switching is endemic, in the current Congress, this practice has been reinforced by way of the "supermajority."

In the House of Representatives, there are now only 7 "real" opposition representatives, or representatives who have fundamental differences with the ruling coalition. Considered the "independent minority bloc" and sometimes labeled as the "Magnificent 7," these representatives are Edcel Lagman (Albay), Emmanuel Billones (Capiz), Raul Daza (Northern Samar), Edgar Erice (Caloocan City), Gary Alejano (Magdalo) and Tom Villarin (Akbayan).

The other, more official minority is the Suarez minority led by Danilo Suarez (Quezon) and composed of at least 16 representatives mostly coming from party-list organizations – such as Anna Villaraza-Suarez (Alona), Lito Atienza (Buhay), Harry Roque (Kabayan), and Alfredo Garbin Jr (Ako Bicol).

The opposition character of this "official" minority is suspect because of the background of its leader, Suarez, who is a close ally of former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (now a close ally of President Duterte), and, its track record in not opposing bills filed by the ruling coalition. Twelve (12) of these minority members, for example, voted for the House bill on the restoration of the death penalty that was authored by no less than House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez. Only 4 voted against the bill.

Even with the "independent minority" and the "Suarez minority" combined, the ruling party would still be a supermajority with 270 members/allies and 23 non-allies. To transact business, the quorum of a simple majority – or 147 representatives – must be met. A bill is passed on third reading if a simple majority of those present vote yet. So, technically, given a full quorum of 147, Congress needs only 74 votes to pass bills.

In the House of Representatives, of the 293 sitting representatives, 108 are now said to be members of PDP-Laban. It needs to be in coalition with other groups to create a quorum but by itself, it can deliver the yes votes.

Of the 108 PDP-Laban Reps, only 3 were originally PDP-Laban and the rest are "transferees." The bulk of these transferees – 71 in total – came from LP, the previous ruling party. The rest came from the following parties who now form part of the supermajority: NPC, NUP, NP, Lakas, UNA, LDP, and a party-list bloc.

In the Senate, PDP-Laban members are only 5 but of the sitting 23 senators, 17 form the majority bloc and only 6 constitute the minority bloc or the opposition.

Serving the President's agenda

While the President is allowed to influence Congress by way, for example, of the annual State of the Nation Address (SONA) where he or she lays out his or her legislative agenda, Congress is expected to also act as the fiscalizer of the President and the executive branch. As a co-equal branch, Congress is supposed to have its own agenda.

In the past year, it has been very clear that the agenda of Congress has not been any different from the agenda of the President. House Bills No. 1 and No. 2, for example, on the restoration of the death penalty and the lowering of the age of criminal liability – authored by no less than the Speaker of the House – were clearly in sync with the President's war on drugs.

All in all, 4 bills were signed into law in the first year of the 17th Congress. These laws include RA 10923 on the postponement of the 2016 barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections – an agenda which President Duterte has mentioned in several speeches. The barangays, according to Duterte, are part of the narcopolitics. The President, in fact, just wants to appoint barangay captains instead of holding barangay elections because "40% of barangay captains are into drugs."

While it can be argued that there is nothing wrong with a president generating majority legislative support, there is something wrong with a Congress that does not exercise its oversight function over presidential prerogatives, especially the prerogative to declare martial law. Given our history of Martial Law under former president Ferdinand Marcos, the imposition of martial law should be discussed by Congress. The 17th Congress, instead, discussed only the request of President Duterte to extend martial law in Mindanao until December 2017. The yes votes for this extension was 261 while only 18 voted no.

Very recently, the subservience of the supermajority was again on full display as the House of Representatives voted 119-32 to allocate a budget of only P1,000 or $20 for the Commission on Human Rights. President Duterte himself has repeatedly declared in public how the CHR is an obstacle to his war on drugs and that the agency – with its human rights discourse – is detestable and should be abolished. By defunding the CHR, the House practically demobilized the agency which is mandated by the 1987 Constitution to check on government's compliance with state obligation to protect and promote human rights. This was clearly an overreach of legislative powers as the CHR is a constitutional commission that cannot be abolished or demobilized by legislative fiat. It was also clearly a statement of support for the President: Congress effectively removed an obstacle that Duterte wanted removed.

Fighting the President's opponents

Serving the President also means fighting the President's opponents. This role played by Congress, especially the House, is another example of overreach because the enemies of the President should not necessarily be the enemies of Congress. Congress, however, has become the venue for President Duterte to win highly personalistic political battles, starting with Senator Leila de Lima, the President's archenemy since his days as Davao City mayor when the senator was then chairperson of the CHR.

The recent controversy over Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II's alleged text message about "expediting cases" against Senator Risa Hontiveros also reveals that Congress is privy to the Executive's plans to demolish opponents. As of this writing, the House justice committee has also just declared the impeachment case filed by lawyer Larry Gadon against Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno as "sufficient in form and substance." Thirty members of the committee voted to accept the case as sufficient while only Bayan Muna Representative Zarate, Akbayan Representative Villarin, and Albay1st District Representative Lagman opposed the move "because it was based on newspaper clippings."

It also needs to be noted that Congress does not only seem to be fighting the President's political adversaries, it also seems to be protecting the President's allies. The President's son who was called to the Senate inquiry on alleged corruption in the Bureau of Customs clearly did not meet the same fate as Senator De Lima who had to face even slut-shaming during legislative hearings on her alleged links to the drug trade.

Aside from the legislative process, the President's hand can also be seen in the Commission on Appointments' recent decisions to reject leftist Cabinet members– after Duterte publicly announced that he was "formally ending" peace talks with the Left.

The fear factors: old and new

Legislators past and present have a common, perennial fear: the fear of not getting reelected. To a very large extent, and because of the absence of real political parties that hold legislators accountable, calculations of these legislators are influenced primarily by the goals of political survival and political longevity. This preoccupation explains why party switching is practically endemic in Congress. To stay in power, one must be allied with the incumbent powers, especially the incumbent president. Loyalty is not to a party or a platform but to whoever is president at the moment.

Said loyalty can also be bought or at least incentivized. In the past, receipt of pork barrel was dependent on one's choice of alliances: legislators in the "opposition" were likely not to receive any pork. The power of the pork barrel, after all, comes not only with the power to provide pork, but also with the power to withhold it. Today, pork barrel is still present in the sense that the "signature" of the "congressman" remains important in identifying and getting resources for "development projects." The only difference is that the funds must now be earmarked as budget items before the passage of the budget into the GAA and not after.

Pledging allegiance to the new president for political survival is thus an old norm and the fear of political exclusion is not new. What is new is the emerging practice of pledging allegiance to the President at all costs – without regard for rationality or public interest. We have seen this in the examples mentioned above: what the President wants, the President gets – without benefit of thorough examination, deliberation or vetting. While discussions are still being held in Congress, there is no real competition of ideas – which is what a genuinely pluralistic Congress should have. Voices of dissent are few and far between. And thus far, the competition has always been about people (i.e. dilawan vs DDS) and not about ideas. To illustrate: in the recent controversy over the CHR budget, no less than the House Speaker declared that the only thing that could save the CHR was the resignation of its chairperson, Chito Gascon. The Speaker did not articulate any reform needed in the CHR and just insisted on this one conditionality – a move that will obviously please and benefit the President because once Gascon resigns, the President can then appoint a more friendly (read: less independent) CHR chairperson.

The traditional Congress is now also more subservient because the President is more authoritarian. Challenging the President can cost lives, not just congressional seats. For the first time, we have a president who publicly "names and shames." As early as August 2016, the President has already been naming names of legislators who, according to him, are corrupt and/or linked to the drug trade. It is not difficult to imagine that legislators will give Duterte what he wants, lest they end up in the President's list of drug lords or protectors. Public shaming is a very powerful tool especially when used by the most powerful official of the country.

Moreover, Congress is now led by leaders who seem to have no qualms in displaying full, unquestioning support for the President's agenda. During the deliberation of the death penalty bill, for example, the Speaker of the House went to the extent of removing representatives who voted "no" from their leadership positions in congressional committees. Wheeling and dealing has always been the norm in Congress but it has never been this open or this brazen.

So, where are the people?

If only the elite and the President are "the people," where, in fact, are "the people"? The easy, oversimplistic answer to this question is that "the people" – given the 16 million votes – are behind the elite and the President.

The more appropriate answer, I think, is that there is no such thing as a singular "people." Invoking "the people" makes sense when speaking of "the people" vis-a-vis a tyrant or vis-a-vis an external aggressor. In governance matters, however, invoking "the people" is not only erroneous given societal diversity (and social inequalities), it is also misleading. Unfortunately, "the people" has become a catch-all phrase that politicians use for their purposes. For Duterte's purpose, "the people" serves as the justification for his war on drugs. For Duterte, "the people" are those who will be saved by his obsessive war – never mind that there are unsolved killings among "the people" as well.

During elections, it is understandable to compete for "the people's vote." In governance, however, what works is not just up to "the people" so it is wrong to invoke "the people" when governing. To illustrate: just look at the demand of jeepney drivers to raise fares. What is good for these jeepney drivers will clearly be bad for commuters. In this case, who should be "the people": the drivers or the commuters? Another illustration would be the case of labor disputes such as the PALEA conflict. In that case, who should be "the people": the displaced workers or Lucio Tan?

"The people" is a myth especially when there are no mechanisms to link the people to government. If "the people" are all those sections of Philippine society that need to sit at the negotiating table, then "the people" are absent in our Congress – given the data presented above. If "the people" are all those sections that need to partake in the country's development, then the 16 million voters of President Duterte cannot constitute the people – given that there are more than 100 million Filipinos and roughly 75% are considered "lower class" and "poor."

Which roads to build, how to solve crime, how to generate jobs, what political system to adopt, how to negotiate for peace, how to solve traffic problems – these are problems that need a combination of political will (leadership) and pencil pushing (bureaucracy) and people's participation (given diverging interests). We will never solve our societal problems if we rely only on one man and disregard political and social institutions.

Instead of combining the perversions of pluralism and populism, we should harness the virtues in these two systems: social inclusion to reduce marginalization, real mechanisms and channels for people to express their diverse wills, rule of law to guide political institutions tasked with managing societal conflicts and addressing social ills, and, leadership that is unifying and inspiring.

At this point, what we desperately need is a president who will work with different stakeholders to transform our political system into a more inclusive, less elitist system, and, a critical mass of legislators in Congress that will insist on consultative, rational, and evidence-informed law making. We need a president who will reform Congress and a Congress that will reform the presidency. We need a citizenry that will insist on having both. – Rappler.com

The author teaches political science at the Ateneo de Manila University. She would like to thank Michael Bueza of Rappler and Beatriz Beato of Ateneo's Political Science Department for their assistance in gathering data for this article.

Jose W. Diokno defined courage for an entire generation who lived through the long nights of martial law.  He embodied the resistance to dictatorship, he upheld human rights in season and out of season, he led the struggle to oust the US military bases from Philippine shores.  He did so by practicing a brave brand of principled politics, by taking a stand without regard for his political fortunes or personal safety.  He spoke out eloquently and tirelessly in the halls of Congress, in the streets and town plazas, throughout the country and abroad.
 
As we commemorate the 45th anniversary of the Marcos declaration of martial law on September 21, 2017, Diokno will stand tall in the heart of the headquarters of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) where his very first statue will be unveiled. Sculpted by Julie Lluch, the bronze figure of the staunch nationalist, human rights advocate, and defender of democracy will grace the grounds of the CHR – an institution whose precursor, the Presidential Committee on Human Rights, he once led.

Remembering a man of uncommon valor

Memories of Ka Pepe Diokno abound, the more memorable ones exemplifying his courage.

I remember Ka Pepe soon after his release from jail as he stood his ground strong and unbowed.  He spoke firmly about the need to resist the excesses of martial law in the town plazas of the Southern Tagalog and Bicol regions.  In one particular incident in Sorsogon, Ka Pepe spoke while the crowd was surrounded by soldiers carrying their threatening armalite guns.  Nothing seemed to deter or discourage him.

I remember Ka Pepe leading a rally in Davao City’s main plaza in driving rain.  It was  in that city after the vast gathering that I first noticed that he would cough incessantly, his booming baritone struggling to be heard above the din.  He was in the first stages of his battle against cancer, and he would not let that deadly disease deter his crusade.

I remember Ka Pepe standing outside the Blue Eagle gym in Loyola Heights where a gathering of anti-martial law activists had come together to forge an alliance.  The meeting took place but the alliance did not materialize.  It disappointed but did not discourage him, and he continued in his struggle through a small but valiant organization he led, KAAKBAY.

I remember Ka Pepe struggling to hold back tears as we heard about the massacre of peasants at the foot of the bridge Mendiola on January, 19, 1987, which led to his resignation as head of the human rights committee and as the government’s peace czar.  I consulted him during the last stages of the campaign to seek the citizens’ approval of the 1987 Constitution in a referendum then scheduled just two weeks after, on 2 February.  He had given his life to causes that totally consumed him, and he was at the end of his physical powers but there was still fire and fight in his eyes.

Honoring the man who said 'No' to US military bases

Fast forward to 1991, I deeply felt Ka Pepe’s absence on the evening the Senate voted “No,” forbidding the retention of foreign military installations in Philippine territory absent a treaty which sealed their fate. Senate President Jovy Salonga in the presence of the Tañadas (the father Lorenzo, a lifelong advocate; and son Bobby who sponsored the initiative on the Senate floor) cast the deciding vote that triggered jubilation among the people who waited for the outcome outside the old Congress. The Anti-Bases Coalition  (ABC) which he had founded had joined the thousands who had come to celebrate the historic event. But, Ka Pepe was no longer around to witness the fruits of his lifetime’s work.

I remember Ka Pepe’s constant companion, his wife Nena, always caring, equally vocal and vigilant, with a fan in one hand and a cigarette in the other, as she traveled with him in campaigns or lecture tours, to defend litigants in courts or visit political detainees, to listen to indigenous peoples or speak with businessmen, to address students at the steps of the Arts and Sciences building at UP Diliman, or to urge the boycott of the rigged Batasang Pambansa elections all over the provinces.  He was tireless, indomitable, and fierce, accompanied by a partner who was rock-solid in step with him.

Recalling the unedited journey of 'Ka Pepe'

Ka Pepe was a senator for two terms, from 1963 onwards.  His second term was cut short by the declaration of martial law which in an instant led to his detention in Camp Crame, Fort Bonifacio, and later solitary confinement in the far-flung military camp in Laur, Nueva Ecija.  He was the only other political dissident accorded the honor of solitary confinement – the other, his colleague in the Senate, Ninoy Aquino.  For two years, Ka Pepe survived the rigors of the solitude and isolation of jail while keeping his mind sharp and alert.

He served as secretary of justice in President Diosdado Macapagal’s cabinet for a little more than 5 months before he tried to break corruption in high places by indicting Harry Stonehill, the cigarette magnate who had bribed officials in high places.  Diokno was forced to resign when he refused to condone a convenient arrangement that allowed for Stonehill’s exoneration and exit from the country.  He would rather step down from his post than be complicit in corruption.

Ka Pepe had a brilliant academic career: graduating valedictorian in high school and  summa cum laude in college. He achieved the rare distinction of topping both the CPA exams (even though he needed an exemption since he was still underage) and the bar exams (even though he did not have the benefit of a law degree). He studied on his own, reading law books he found in his father’s library.

Championing a courageous way of doing politics

In the end, Diokno was defined by the crusades he fought.  He raged against violations of human rights; thus, soon after his release from jail, he founded the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG).  He did not run away from a fight and consistently argued against the presence of US military bases on Philippine soil.  He never accepted the rationale for Marcos’ martial law and resisted the dictatorship till the end, without a hint of compromise.  He defended the common man in the law courts and in the halls of the legislature, in the plazas and in school assemblies, throughout the country and abroad.  He defended the unjustly persecuted such as Fr Niall O’Brien, an Irish Columban missionary, and his companions (called the “Negros Nine”) who were set free after Diokno’s brilliant defense had scuttled the lies and the lack of logic in the trumped-up murder charges leveled against the Negros Nine.

Diokno left a singular legacy: he pioneered principled politics, a new way of doing politics that was honorable and unafraid; bold and brave, giving assurance to those who were advanced in age and providing inspiration and encouragement to the youth of the land.

Diokno defined courage for a generation that resisted martial law in the Marcos years.  Diokno defied the dictatorship that imprisoned him and the designs of the imperial power that supported the dictatorial regime. In this day and age, on the 45th anniversary of martial law and some 30 years after his death, Diokno lives on, his ideals and his dreams, and his deeply held belief that it is worth building “a nation for our children."

The author was a member of Diokno’s KAAKBAY and the ABC, and pursued Diokno’s advocacies as a framer of the 1987 Constitution: the protection of human rights, the pursuit of social justice, and the promotion of national sovereignty.

The term bakal is a Filipino colloquial for gun or firearm. Oplan Bakal dates back many, many years. I remember I experienced my first Oplan Bakal operation in a nightclub in the province as a 2nd Lieutenant of the Philippine Constabulary after I had just graduated from the PMA in 1987.

Oplan Bakal is basically a police operation in an establishment, normally a bar or nightclub, where policemen enter the place unannounced and conduct a search for firearms that may be in the possession of customers or guests. It is a surprise search so that gun-wielding guests or customers can be caught red-handed.

As we all know, and as clearly posted in the entrances of bars and clubs, firearms are not allowed inside the establishments.

Unknown to many, Oplan Bakal is welcome to club and bar management and owners who give police prior approval without knowing when the operation will be conducted because Oplan Bakal helps ensure the safety of the majority of the customers and the club personnel themselves.

In fact, on many occasions, it is the club or bar owner who discreetly requests for an operation on his premises, especially if he is aware that indeed a customer or two bring a gun inside the premises. In conducting Oplan Bakal, police basically request guests to stand up so that they can see if a gun is tucked in their waists, or if anything is suspiciously bulging underneath their clothes.

The police also request – and not force – the guests to open their bags, so the authorities can see if there might be a firearm or deadly weapon inside. The customer may or may not open his or her bag. Again, the customer is not forced to do anything. However, anyone who hesitates to heed the request can give the impression that contraband is being concealed.

The standard operating procedure also requires that all the lights in the place are turned on, the presence of the police and their purpose is clearly announced by the management over the sound system, and the cooperation of the customers is requested. When police arrive, performers on stage are politely requested to stop their performance so that the appropriate announcement can be made. This is to keep customers grom getting alarmed by the sudden arrival of uniformed policemen.

Oplan Bakal is not conducted in schools, offices, hospitals, parties, or even restaurants. Oplan Bakal zeroes in mostly on bars, pubs, nightclubs and similar establishments where alcohol is served.

The premise is very basic. People go to bars, pubs, and clubs to drink beer or other alcoholic beverages. Thus, some people get drunk and get out of hand. People mostly drink for two reasons – either to have fun or to forget their problems.

In forgetting their problems, there lies the dangerous side of drinking. Mostly, problematic customers get drunk and hot around the collar, become belligerent, and start trouble. Squabbles or spats in a bar or pub where everyone is hot and loose can be explosive. In many instances, especially when problematic guests encounter other problematic guests, when one or both are carrying firearms, innocent, fun-loving customers and guests can get hurt or killed.

I do not have the exact figures right now, but I am sure hundreds have died due to squabbles, fights or insane actions by guests inside bars, pubs, and clubs.  One indicator is the notoriety in recent years of Frank Sinatra’s song, “My Way,” where so many have been shot and killed for singing the song in sing-along bars and karaoke.

Oplan Bakal is a good deterrence to such unfortunate incidents that have claimed the lives of many innocent victims who only wanted to have fun or a good time in a bar. Oplan Bakal is, therefore, far from what some quarters call a violation of one’s right to privacy where police must first secure a search warrant to conduct it. The law clearly authorizes this common sense police procedure which prevents gunplay or worse in bars, and also apprehends holders of contraband. – Rappler.com

Police Chief Superintendent Guillermo Lorenzo T. Eleazar is the Quezon City Police District director. You may contact him at odd_qcpd@yahoo.com.ph.

Another young promising man, Horacio Tomas Castillo III, died in fraternity hazing. A law student, he died as he underwent physical initiations in the hands of his future brothers. Many more fratmen will be made to pay the price for his death.

While we call for justice and that punishments must be exacted on individuals who inflicted such horror and suffering, we could just lament why our educational system systematically produces young promising men, only to reduce them to such a barbaric state.

I once had the misfortune of being entangled in the issue of fraternity violence. And I suffered much. That is why it had been one of my advocacies to curb fraternity violence. The only way I can do this is to educate people about the fraternity system and describe it from a dispassionate point of view. (READ: Youth groups condemn death of UST student Horacio Castillo III)

Below is my long reflection on the state of the fraternity system. It was written right after my acquittal from a murder case. Please share with every parent and everyone who cares about the future of their children.

So many young promising men had been put to waste. So many dreams had been shattered. So many families had been broken.

The fraternity system has become a big black hole that sucks these young promising men to their graves. The fraternity as an institution, despite its noble and lofty ideals, has degenerated into becoming a barbaric gang. Internally, its organizational structure has become so hierarchically feudal, with the head becoming the law and the members losing their individuality. Externally, it has imbibed the culture of the tribesmen and treats other tribes as an unforgivable “enemy”.

With the barbaric culture of the fraternities, school administrations have responded with iron fists. They apply more stringent measures and harsher penalties to those caught in the act of violence. Others have totally banned the formation of the fraternities in the campus and deny the fraternities’ existence. Some schools even equate frat members with criminals preying on unsuspecting students/victims.

The seeds of violence

Though cloaked with the noble and lofty visions such as academic excellence, nationalism, leadership, rule of law, intellectual integrity and other high principles, the fraternities developed strong organizational cultures that arose out of competition from other fraternities. The organizational culture, which has leanings toward violence, is what makes fraternities lost in their ideals.

Hazing

The seeds of violence are sown into the heart of a fratman the moment he enters the fraternity. The rites of passage required before an applicant can be considered a “brother” is a ritual replete with physical and psychological violence. By testing the mettle through pain and humiliation, the new members are inducted to become blood brothers. In hazing or initiations, the neophytes are made to believe that their fraternity is the one and only fraternity that exists. All the rest are mere dance troupes. The “masters” would let their “neophytes” hate the “enemy” and vow for their enemy-fraternities’ destruction.

The physical violence impinged on frat member during initiations becomes the rationale for the acceptability of the other forms of violence. The members accept the violence as normal practice.

Fountains of hatred

The culture of hate is passed on from one generation to another. Stories of “war exploits” by senior and alumni members are told again and again to young members exhorting them to do their fair share in advancing the fraternity’s “glorious tradition.” They have evolved the “warrior class” to be the vanguard in the military efforts. The warrior class has the special mission of collecting information against the other parties, in plotting attacks and development of the paraphernalia of war. Members who do not adhere to the militarist tradition are considered outcasts or have low standing in the fraternity stature. The voices of those who cracked more skulls or who had proven themselves to be “the man” ring more stringently than those who wish to simply study and be an ordinary student.

Psychological violence

The other kind of violence that is less latent but equally repressive is the psychological violence imposed on the frat men. Frat members are obliged to conform to the “high ideals” of the fraternity. They are asked to do some tasks which test their loyalty to the fraternity yet could be a humiliating personal experience. As junior members or new recruits, they cannot air their opinions and ideas in the policy making of the fraternity officers. The members should follow rules without question. In the process, the individuality of the members is subsumed by the greater “interest of the fraternity”.

This setup makes it easy to mobilize the frat members in times of war. The head of the frat can easily command the whole membership and assign them to their specific tasks. Even those who are anti-violence and peace advocates within the frat have no option but to comply. They are asked to hold a lead pipe or baseball bat even if their hearts and minds do not find any logic in it. In a frat war situation, the other party does not distinguish who are the hotheads and the cool heads. The only consideration is that they are members of the “enemy” and the target of the hit.

Members who do not want to be involved in this practice are considered pariahs. They are the butt of jokes and the objects of scorn. Some frat members would simply become less visible in the tambayan because they cannot accept the norms of the frat. However, they would be called upon once in a while to perform some tasks. Also, they would be doing this at their own risk. In times of rumbles, they cannot be easily informed and updated about the status of war. They may attend their class and end up in a hospital. It then pays to become one of the boys.

Those who have inclinations to campus politics, academics, campus papers etc are given high esteem only if they have proven themselves to the fraternity. While it brings glory to a frat to have members in the student councils and school papers, nonetheless, the higher premium is still given to those who had become the head and officers of the frat. That is why there are members who are “picked” and “arranged” to become campus politicians. Their being in office is a manifestation of the fraternity’s flexing of the muscle.

The psychological violence is therefore cloaked in sophistication. While the frat members are obliged to surrender some of their individual rights, the promise of reward for the members come in the full enjoyment from the benefit the frat receives as a whole.

Code of silence

The fraternities anchor their strength on secrecy. Like the Sicilian code of omerta, fraternity members are bound to keep secrets from the non-members. They have codes and symbols the frat members alone can understand. They know if there are problems on campus by mere signs posted on conspicuous places. They have a different set of communicating, like inverting the spelling of words, so that ordinary conversations cannot be decoded by non-members. 

It takes a lot of acculturation in order for frat members to imbibe the code of silence. The members have to be a mainstay of the tambayan to know the latest developments about new members and the activities of other frats. Secrets are even denied to some members who are not really into the system. They have to earn a reputation to be part of the inner sanctum. It is a form of giving premium to become the “true blue member”.

The code of silence reinforces the feeling of elitism. The fraternities are worlds of their own. They are sovereign in their existence. They have their own myths, conceptualization of themselves and worldviews. Save perhaps for their alumni association, they do not recognize any authority aside from the head of the fraternity.

Rumbles

Rumbles are the physical manifestations of the psychological state of war among the members. Simple actions like “titigan” or “pagdaan sa tambayan ng kabilang frat” can be misunderstood as invitation for trouble. “Panliligaw sa girlfriend” or “nakabangga sa inuman” are explosive causes of war because they directly question the manhood or macho image of the frat member. There are also more childish reasons like “trip manghanap ng away”. This usually comes after young members are high with stories from their alumni members during their drinking sprees. The young members are regaled about incidents of war during the alumni’s time. After the drinking session, the first “enemy” to be seen from nowhere is mauled and becomes part of the frat’s war exploits.

There are also rumbles waged in the interest of the fraternity. This is usually in the defense of the fraternities’ name and image. Examples would be in the conduct of campus elections and when other fraternities encroached on the traditional projects of other fraternities. School debates or sports tournaments, thus, cannot be handled by another frat if there is a fraternity that had traditionally implemented such projects.

Other reasons of rumbles could be “Godfather-like” proportions. Rumbles are meant to strike fear in the heart of the “enemy”. When a frat is engaged in a rumble, it must hit the “enemy” with a strong exclamation point, such that the “enemy” will no longer have the physical and psychological strength to wage a rumble.

The culture of rumble is also self-perpetuating. When a fraternity has “lost” in a particular incident of war, that fraternity would present itself as a “victim”. It would contact friends in the media, file charges in the administrative and judicial bodies and portray itself as the aggrieved. Any bad publicity against the other party, expulsions, and suspensions from schools and incarceration in jails is also a way of getting back at the “enemy”. Then the fraternity buys time. It waits till the “enemy” is complacent and then unloads its vengeance and makes its score. Physical violence is still the highest premium in exacting flesh and blood. The other party now becomes the “victim”. It would file the appropriate charges and undergo the same motions. And then, the attack comes.

Rumbles are cyclical. And they exclude no one. Not even the grade-conscious, peace-loving frat members. Worse, they could be the easy targets. They attend classes regularly and be more visible in the campus. Thus, their schedules are easy to discern. They could be immediately plotted out in retaliation for an attack.

Cool heads and hotheads

Not all frat members, however, share the inclination or penchant for rumble and violence. In a fraternity, there are more cool heads than hotheads. Perhaps in every 10 members, there could be 8 cool heads and only two hot heads. However, the cool heads are the silent majority in the fraternity. They seldom speak during meetings and are not elected during frat elections. Their opinions and views on how to run the affairs of the fraternity are not properly and openly articulated. The cool heads have no identity in the frat. They are lost in the multitude. They do not know each other. They do not even know that they exist. Their longing for peace is gobbled up by the voice of the hotheads.

The hotheads, on the other hand, are the speakers and articulators of the “glorious tradition of the fraternity”, the tradition of war and violence. They would egg the other members to always look into their frat’s “pride and honor”. The hotheads would continually put a premium on the need and necessity of putting up a fight if the interest of the fraternity so demands. They would continually search for new members who share their beliefs and pass on to them the practices and techniques of war. They are the moral vanguards of the fraternity. They applaud members who had the recent experience of proving their mettle, of gallantly fighting during rumbles. The hotheads make and determine the policy of the officers by default. If for example, they wish to consolidate the fraternity, they could simply launch an attack against another frat. This will compel all the frat members to be united again in one cause.

The hotheads and the cool heads in a fraternity thus could not easily be distinguished. During times of rumbles, they act as if they are one. The cool heads become hotheads if, after some prodding and exhortation, they eventually adhere and become a convert. The hotheads also become cool heads, if, after some horrifying experiences, they rediscover that there is nothing good that comes out in fraternity violence.

Battle of two cultures

The culture of violence and the culture of peace have adherents in every fraternity. Among the fraternities themselves, there is always continuing debate on why there should and should be no rumbles.

Most of the time, the adherents of the violent culture hold sway. It is an adventurous way of life anyway, and there seem to be no hazards at all. Since most of the members are teenagers, they are young and wild and free, then it is the fashionable thing to be engaged in. Having a rumble once in a while drives up all the adrenaline inside the body and it is a healthy way of releasing unspent energies. During and after rumbles, especially if the frat wins, the members are all high and ecstatic in sharing their little war exploits. It bonds the members together.

However, when the culture of violence reaches a certain level where the occurrence of accidents becomes regular, the voice of the adherents for peace can be heard again. The deaths or convictions in criminal cases of fraternity members, especially when they are reported by the media, are like cold water splashed on the frat members. For a while, the culture for peace becomes more dominant. After an incident that puts the entire fraternity system in a bad light, the different fraternities, either sincere or not, put a semblance of intention in maintaining peace on campus. The fraternity members would rediscover the beauty of having friends with other fraternities again and would forge peace alliances. Different fraternities would come together to play basketball and vow to settle their disputes, if ever there would be, in a peaceful manner. The fraternities would be conscious not to add in the steering debate about fraternity violence. The fraternities are aware of having lesser recruits as a result of the bad public image.

However, when the issue in the media about frat violence boils down, or when a new set officers take control of the affairs of the fraternity, the seeds for maintaining a culture of peace slowly fade away. The hotheads in the fraternity and the stories of the alumni members about the need to always look out for the other fraternities once again take upper control in the battle of the two cultures. There would be little misunderstandings and the mechanisms for dialogues as a way to resolve disputes are forgotten. And when there is a crack on the foundations of peace, a rush of violent confrontations sets in, as if, the fraternities had come from a long hibernation and now have rediscovered their first love.

Public apathy

Non-frat members do not understand the mechanics of the fraternities. They do not see any logic why fraternity members engage themselves in violent activities. The non-fraternity members simply dissociate themselves from the problems that plague the fraternity system. They do not care if the frat members become maimed or killed in an incident of war. While they feel the loss and the pain of the families who have been victims of frat violence, their sympathy is extended only to sighs of utter hopelessness. They blame the depraved sense of values of the fraternities yet mock the frat member for becoming too stupid to join a frat. But when the issue dies down, the public loses all its bitterness. This happens till another person becomes a victim again.

Worse, in little fracas that does not have mortal results, the public gives its approval. They would ask the score in a rumble and applaud those who did the greater damage over the other party. This would, in turn, feed the frat members’ ego and give the fraternities more reasons to join a rumble.

Voice of the victims

Fraternity violence has destroyed many lives. There are many students now staying in jail. There are many more who were expelled from schools. There were those who met their untimely deaths.

Yet, despite fraternity’s hotheadedness and penchant for violence, the fraternity members are all victims here. The members are drowned in a culture they themselves do not understand. The frat members are like moths playing in the fire. They never know when their wings will be smoldered.

The victims should speak now. They should not meekly accept their fate. Their experiences should not simply be sad stories in the frat lore. The thought that their doom is a simple consequence of being a frat man should be shattered. The victims are not mere accidents. They are flesh and blood who would carry the bitter experience throughout their lives. They should break the code of silence and voice their concern over the growing barbarism of the institution that they belong to. The victims should speak saying that all those who ever held a paddle and lead pipe are all guilty to the fate that had befallen them. The victims must initiate the voice: the enemy here is not the “other” fraternity, the enemy is ourselves. The culprit is the culture of violence that engulfs the fraternity system.

Here is the first voice. – Rappler.com

Raymund Narag is an Assistant Professor at Southern Illinois Univesity and a former Fullbright Fellow at Michigan State University.

Confused na nga ako sa relasyon namin,

confused pa ako kung ano’ng okasyon ang uunahin.

Kasabay sa pag patak ng ulan ang aking pagkalito.

Hanggang Undas ba aasa ang puso ko

o tanggapin ko na bang mag-isa ako sa Pasko?

– Rappler.com

Artwork by Ernest John Fiestan
Text by Phoebe Lynne de Jesus

#FridayFeels is a cartoon series by the Rappler Creatives Team. Cathartic, light, but relevant, it's a welcome break from your heavy news feed! You can pitch illustration ideas by sending a message to the Rappler Facebook page.

Many have been castigating the national democratic Left, to which the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the New People’s Army (NPA) belong, as to why they remain in partnership with the Duterte administration.

These critics have accused these particular leftists of "pera pera lang 'yan" or "hayok sa posisyon lang." From the surface, it would seem so. But are they really that stupid, greedy, and shallow? 

One must understand that the national democratic movement suffered a severe shock and setback during the disaster of the 1986 snap elections boycott campaign and their marginalization following that. This was a very painful and traumatic experience for the above- and underground forces of the national democrats. From being previously seen even by the United States government as the number one threat to the Marcos dictatorship, they had been swept aside and rendered irrelevant following the 1986 EDSA Revolution.

Aside from deposing the dictator, the EDSA Revolution also managed to impose a crushing defeat on the ambitions of the CPP-NPA to advance the armed struggle from strategic defensive to that of strategic stalemate. 

This led to a steady drop in national democratic membership, especially in the underground movement, in the years following 1986. From a high of 30,000 guerrilla fighters in 1985, the NPA by 2016 had gone down to 3,500 guerrillas. Revolutionary Fronts haVE been overwhelmed by successive government counter-insurgency programs in the past 30 years, gutting the mass base of the movement. 

This mass base is the very source of support for their cadres and guerrillas in matters of recruitment and extortion. During the mid-1990s, or 10 years after EDSA 1, the Philippine military felt confident enough to consider modernization programs to address external defense requirements following the Mischief Reef incident, and left the primary responsibility of dealing with the CPP-NPA to the  Philippine National Police. Unfortunately for the PNP, it was next to useless in facing off the communists by itself so, after a short while, the Armed Forces of the Philippines reassumed primary responsibility again. 

By 2014, the second Aquino administration sought to reassess the threats affecting the Philippines. For the first time, the CPP-NPA lost out to the People’s Republic of China as the number one threat to the country. The CPP-NPA was dismissed as a mere bandit organization that was more interested in collecting funds through extortion rackets than in furthering the people’s war. 

Hence, Duterte's peace initiative is a shot in the arm for the national democratic movement and the CPP-NPA. Of course, money does play a crucial role in their activities, especially that of the CPP-NPA. But the dream of re-establishing their strength and influence never left the national democrats, and when they were given plum positions in the Duterte administration as part of the peace process, they hit two birds with one stone. 

First bird hit: They became influential in policy making processes in the national government, which they never enjoyed at all and was a first in their history. That claim by RAM coup plotters in the 1980s that Corazon Aquino had appointed communists in her Cabinet was a bunch of hogwash. It took Rodrigo Duterte to bring them in. Ironically some of the same RAM members who are now avid supporters of the Duterte administration for whatever personal reasons that they have, and who cried the loudest in the 1980s against alleged communist infiltration, do not seem to bat an eyelash against that very decision of Duterte. 

However, with individuals linked to the national democrats and CPP occupying positions of power in the Cabinet and other agencies, this created suspicion between them and those involved in national security. This had the effect of neutralizing a cardinal concept of governance which is that of whole of government approaches to solving problems affecting the country. 

Second bird: More importantly is that this led to confusion and lack of direction in the security sector, as the Duterte administration concentrated exclusively on the drug war and left the military with no coherent policy guidance as to how to deal with the CPP-NPA. Naturally, the CPP-NPA took advantage of this. They managed to organize in areas they had been cleared from. They added hundreds of new recruits into the ranks of the guerrilla movement in less than a year, and had continued mounting offensives, to the chagrin of the confused AFP. 

Hence, the Duterte administration ended up rejuvenating the national democrats and CPP-NPA. Since the national democrats are well-versed in history, they are very much aware that such alliances are not meant to last. In fact, given the recent non-confirmations of Judy Taguiwalo and Rafael Mariano by the Commission on Appointments, they know that the relationship will end very soon.

Still, they are patient and are biding their time for that inevitable moment and will milk the relationship for all its strategic and tactical worth. Every single day of government confusion is an additional day for the aboveground and underground movements to strengthen, consolidate, and expand. 

Eventually the break will occur and when it does, the Philippine government’s severely overstretched security forces will face a confident and strengthened aboveground and underground movement. Given the disunity and petty squabbles present within the political opposition, the national democrats again have a chance to reassert themselves as the dominant anti-government opposition, pretty much the same way that they did in the 1970s and early 1980s before they squandered it all in 1986. 

As Duterte has threatened martial law against future CPP-NPA attacks, this is tantamount to fighting off a swarm of flies with a stick covered in excrement. Martial law is going to be another shot in the arm for the national democrats that may create their much sought for revolutionary situation that has eluded them since 1986. Martial Law in their analysis will result in harsh and draconian measures that they hope will create more abuses against the civilian population. After all, the CPP-NPA has always said that the repressive and dictatorial Marcos regime was their best recruiter. As can be seen in the situation in Lanao del Sur and areas affected by operations against the Maute, the declaration of Martial Law has not diminished what many observers have seen as anti-government sentiments among a number of Maranaos. 

It then becomes a race between the government and anti-government forces as to who can win over the disenchanted population. In the case of the CPP-NPA, Martial Law abuses may create the conditions for mass base expansion, guerrilla recruitment, and sanctuaries. They hope to further exploit the Duterte administration’s focus on the drug war, which has caused so many police abuses, and the military’s distraction with the Maute group, which has seen large numbers of government troops tied down in Lanao del Sur, leaving other parts of the country vulnerable to communist activities.

No, the National Democrats and the underground communists are not fools. In their mind, they can sense a brewing revolutionary situation. In fact it seems that the national democrats and the CPP-NPA apparently have gotten their mojo back, thanks mainly to the incoherence of the Duterte administration. These are indeed interesting times. – Rappler.com 

Jose Antonio Custodio is a security and defense consultant. He specializes in military history and has post-graduate studies in history from the University of the Philippines. He occasionally teaches history and political science in several universities in Metro Manila.