AFTER REVGOV, HERE COMES FEDERALISM

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

AFTER failed moves to create a revolutionary government (RevGov) late last year, the Duterte government takes a new issue: the proposed shift to federal system of government. Public debates have intensified, as advocates of the contrasting federal and unitary systems of government have sought to bring out the best arguments in favor of either system.

Adherents of the federal system of government said that the nation’s feeble development is deeply rooted in its highly centralized form of government, leading to the emergence of what they have dubbed as “Imperial Manila,” where decisions are made in Manila to the detriment of the countryside.

But advocates of the status quo, or the existing unitary government, have claimed otherwise, even as they denied the existence of an Imperial Manila. On the contrary, the country’s underdevelopment springs from a host of factors and it could not be blamed alone on the perceived lack of autonomy in the countryside.

The public debates have turned ugly as leading Duterte supporters, or the “Mindanao bullies” led by Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, have been ramming proposed constitutional amendments, which could mean a prolonged – or 10-year period transition period to a federal system, and the scrapping of the Office of the Vice President.

From all indications, the Duterte government is not exactly bent to initiate a federal shift. What it wants is to adopt authoritarianism, where Duterte and his ilk are assured of a prolonged stay in power even without popular mandate. Federalism appears to be mere a political camouflage for authoritarianism, or dictatorship.

A unitary state is governed by a single power, where the central government is ultimately supreme and its administrative divisions exercise only the powers that the central government chooses to delegate. Of the 193 United Nations member states, 165 are governed as unitary states.

A federal state is governed by a mixed or compound mode of government that combines a general government called federal government and regional governments - provincial, state, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments in a single political system. While the federal government enjoys central rights, the states have autonomy.

History

The idea of a federal shift did not come from the Federalista Party the old capitulating Ilustrados formed when the Americans came into power at the turn of the 20th century. The Federalistas were more interested for the U.S. annexation of the Philippines to become a state.

The shift to a federal system from the existing unitary government is part of the political platform of the Pilipino Democratic Party (PDP), a Mindanao-based political party formed in 1982 by Aquilino Pimentel Jr., a former senator, and several Mindanao-based political leaders. Months after its creation, it merged with Lakas ng Bayan (Laban) party, led by the late former senator Lorenzo Tanada, to form PDP-Laban, the current political party in power.

Except for the single paragraph which enumerates by bullets PDP’s political objectives, Nene Pimentel hardly discusses the concept of federalism in his book, “Martial Law in the Philippines: My Story,” which contains his memoirs. Instead, Pimentel discusses at length the political dynamics during those days, where dictator Ferdinand Marcos lorded over the national situation.

Pimentel’s failure to discuss PDP-Laban’s political platform, especially the shift to federal system, gives the impression that the PDP-Laban stalwarts during those days were never serious about the federal shift. The PDP-Laban has put it as one of the bullet points to produce and provide something for the people. Together with the federal shift, the PDP-Laban proposed the adoption of a parliamentary form of government, giving the impression too that a federal system goes with a parliamentary government.

In the 1998 presidential elections, former Cebu governor Emilio “Lito” Osmena ran unsuccessfully for president under a political platform that called for sustained local government initiatives as answer for what he perceived as Imperial Manila. But he did not mention any shift to federal system. He placed fourth in a field of six serious candidates, putting an end to his criticisms of an Imperial Manila.

Calls for a federal shift have been renewed shortly after Duterte won in 2016 under the PDP-Laban, which has not given up federalism as part of its political platform. But whether the PDP-Laban wants to pursue the federal shift to promote development is unclear t the moment. It lacks many critical details. It is perceived as a political tool to prolong their stay in power.

Arguments against federalism 

Arguments against the federal shift were aired by Dr. Ma. Carmen Penalosa, executive director of Miriam College’s Center for Strategic Research, who, in a paper before a recent international conference, said: “There is no assurance that a shift to federalism will bring development to the Philippines in general and Mindanao in particular. What is certain however is that federalism may weaken, if not fully abrogate, national integration precisely because of a number of factors that militate against a federal form of government in the country.”

According to Penalosa, the country’s political history does not support a federal form of government. On the contrary, socio-politico-historical factors show a national trajectory for unitary form of govt. The proposed federal shift could lead to what she termed as “national disintegration.”

The country’s 300 years of political experience as a unitary state is not easy to ignore, she said. Jose Rizal’s principalia-ilustrado revolt that led to the Malolos Republic and Andres Bonifacio’s Himagsikan ng Katipunan that called for an independent state both had a trajectory for a unitary government, she said.

Federalism adherents have never stressed that  it would empower local government units (LGUs) and stimulate countryside economic growth. What they are proposing are constitutional changes “based on faith,” she said “The idea that federalism would solve the peace and order problem in Mindanao and bring economic prosperity is speculative. It’s an idea bereft of socio-cultural-political and historical realities,” she said.

“Even the colonial state set up by the Americans and the postwar republic that followed beginning 1946 continued in the same unitary direction despite the American federal system and their efforts to shape the Philippines and the Filipinos in their own image,” Penalosa said. “From Commonwealth to the present, federalism was never a consideration.”

Penalosa said the unitary system remains ingrained in the Filipino psyche, as some groups complain about “Manila imperialism,” a phrase which has always been a subject of debates among conflicting advocates.

Federalism

Jonathan Malaya, executive director of the PDP Laban Federalism Institute, said on its website: “The Philippines has a unitary system of government by an accident of history. The Spaniards and Americans who colonized our country saw that that fastest way to subjugate the native peoples was to set-up a highly-centralized system with Manila as the imperial capital. Despite the archipelagic nature of the country inhabited by diverse cultures, the unitary system was carried over even when the Philippines gained its independence and became a Republic in 1946.”

Malaya cited a litany of woes: “Through time, the disadvantages of a unitary system became apparent in the country. The system concentrated political and economic power in the ‘center’ and thus, development was limited in areas close to Manila and stifled elsewhere. Not surprisingly, in a country of more than 100 million people, sixty two per cent (62%) of the country’s [Gross Domestic Product] comes from Metro Manila, Central Luzon, and [Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal, and Quezon or CALABARZON] while the rest of the country is suffering from underdevelopment and low investment.

“Our system of government has resulted in a grave imbalance in the distribution of resources among regions and local government units. Unfortunately, this inequality has led to social unrest, with various groups (especially in Mindanao) arming themselves to fight against the system. Clearly, there is a need for change.”

Justifying the federal shift, Malaya said: “The problem, we submit, is our highly-centralized form of government and the solution … is the adoption of the federal system. We believe that the only way to bring about equitable and widespread development in our country is for the central government to share power - political and economic - with the regions and LGUs.”

Malaya said the assumption into power of the Duterte government could lead to “systemic changes,” which include the proposed federal shift, stressing that the federal system has been adopted by the U.S., Germany, Malaysia, and Australia “to keep their countries strong and progressive while allowing the different communities within their country to work together for the progress of all.”

While federalism has been proclaimed as the cure-all pill for the nation’s development woes, its proponents are unclear on the exact nature- or model - of a federal system that would fit the Philippines. Echoing the stand of its proponents, Malaya said: “Federalism scholars contend that there are as many federal models as there are federal countries; every federal country has a distinct model that works best for its own country. Countries who wish to shift to a federal system – like the Philippines - must discern its own version of federalism according to the peculiar conditions of their societies. Therefore, it is important to learn from the experiences – whether good or bad – of existing federations.”

Malaya also identified the type of federalism in the Philippines, giving what could be regarded an abstract concept of “holding together” federalism. “Because we are already a unitary state seeking to shift into a federation, many of the standard features of federal countries like ‘shared sovereignty’ between the federal and regional governments do not apply to us because of our different context,” he said in reference to what has been termed “federalism in reverse,” where an existing unitary state is broken into regions or sub-states to compose a federal system.

Overall, Malaya proposed to retain the 1987 Constitution, but only after performing what he described a “surgical” approach towards amending it. He wants to concentrate on “provisions that would enshrine federalism into the Constitution and strengthen our public institutions.”

Militating factors against federalism

Penalosa said the existing political culture militates against the federal shift. The existence of political dynasties, electoral fraud, and violence as personified by rido (clan wars), private armies, warlordism, death squads, graft and corruption, nepotism, and spoils and patronage, or rent-seeking, booty capitalism, clientelism, and narcopolitics are quite intense along local levels than the national level.

Since most Filipino politicians are driven by vested interest, it does not augur well for the shift to federal system, Penalosa said. Philippine politics is characterized by multiparty system and partisan politics driven by coalition of convenience shifting political alliance, prevalence of political dynasties and corruption.

She said: “In an oligarchic state like the Philippines, where elite politics exists, federalism would not widen the political space as it limits political competition to entrenched dynasties and create subnational dictators. Federalism could only exacerbate the existing disempowerment of the majority and impeding democratization and development as it favors those in control of centers of political authority and administrative power in the local levels.”

Penalosa mentioned the existing economic disparity issues; two-thirds of the GDP come from three regions – Metro Manila, Central Luzon, and Southern Tagalog. A federal shift would mean other regions would lose state subsidy, she said.

Penalosa raised public administration issues of nightmarish proportions, stressing that an abruptly implanted bureaucracy could mean challenges for administration reforms. Moreover, she raised the following: enormity and complexity of the institutional designs that comes from the overhaul of the system of government - from unitary to federal, from presidential to parliamentary; coopted bureaucracy by vested political interests; and weak state dominated by elites.

Motion on reverse direction

For Benjamin Punongbayan, head a big accounting firm bearing his name and president of Buklod, a civil society organization that espouses national unity, the Philippines is already a unified country. It has satisfied the vital requirements to become a full state. Hence, it makes no sense to push the country on a reverse motion by subdividing it into various sub-states to satisfy the federal shift.

According to Punongbayan, the federal shift is difficult to implement since the institutions at the state level would have to be organized and developed, unlike in the federal states like the U.S. and Germany, which had existing and functioning state government at the time of federation. He said the initial resources for the state institutions of the Federal Philippines could be drawn from existing national institutions and provincial bureaucracy. But they would not enough to sustain a federal government because of the additional layer in the bureaucracy.

Punongbayan said each state has to develop its expertise to issue policies and programs related to economic development, taxes, infrastructure, etc. It has to develop the capability for budgeting, collecting taxes, contracting for construction and other services and other areas. “All these put together need organization and development of resource capability and capacity. These organizational and developmental activities require time to put the state institutions at a reasonably functioning level,” he said. “Federalism will create disruption in the present order of things and require reorganization and redevelopment on the subdivided parts.”

For him, it makes no sense to engage in a political experiment “full of unknown dangers and risks,” even as he called to study the proposed federal shift “before we embark on a trip of no return.” Moreover, the issue of taxation is a ticklish matter in a federal system. Which goes to the federal government and which goes to the sub-states must be differentiated. In a published commentary, Punongbayan said:

“There will therefore be a clear dividing line between the fiscal authority of the central government and the fiscal authority of the Federal subdivisions. In effect, through their powers of deriving and allocating revenue, in theory, the states will have a strong influence in shaping the respective economic development of the people within their geographical jurisdiction.”

Federalism program

While claiming it has studied various models of federal states and the 25 years of devolution under the Local Government Code of 1992, the PDP-Laban Institute, the purported think tank of the party in power, said its model of a Federal Philippines contains “a shift to a federal government with a semi-presidential system or a hybrid parliamentary system similar to the governments in Taiwan, South Korea, Portugal and to a certain extent, France. “

According to Malaya, the proposed federal system contains a “transition mechanism for regional governments to prepare themselves for further decentralization, provisions to strengthen political parties, mechanisms to regulate political dynasties, and other political and electoral reforms.” It also contains two levels of government – the Federal Government and the Regional Government.

To offset what the pro-federalism adherents see as “overlapping mandates” between the national government and LGUs, each level of government in the federal system would have particular jurisdiction. The federal government would have exclusive legislative powers national defense, police and national security, foreign affairs, currency, immigration, and other matters that concern the entire nation.

It proposes the creation of 11 regional governments, the composition of which shall be attached as an ordinance to the Constitution. Regional governments would have primary legislative powers over basic services such as social welfare and development, tourism, irrigation, water and sewerage, waste management, fire protection, regional development planning, franchises, licenses and permits; and the allocation and provision of funds and resources to local Governments within the Region, among others.

 It proposes the replacement of the current presidential system by a hybrid parliamentary system, where executive power is dispersed among the president, the prime minister, the cabinet, the parliament and the regional governments. It seeks a “more decentralized system of governance,“ as it points to the president as an “arbiter of disputes between the federal and regional governments and among regional governments.”

Press reports said the so-called “Mindanao Bullies,” or the faction led by the Speaker, want a ten-year transition period that would extend the term of current elected officials, including the president, but scrap the Office of the Vice President to give way for the proposed prime minister. Alvarez was reported to have been eyeing constitutional amendments outlining these changes. But it has been generating controversy.

Good in paper

Just like any proposed political reforms, the envisioned federal shift is good in paper. But its theoretical soundness does not necessarily guarantee its unmitigated success. It is long in hope, but short in details that could actualize success.

Nobody could predict the ensuing political dynamics that could result from the constitutional amendments. Not even the brightest political mind, or think tanks could have an idea of the ensuing developments arising from the political experiment.

The think tank’s claim that the proposed federal system was “the only hope” to solve the country’s woes does not even deserve a second look. It is a claim devoid of any real basis and fraught with danger. There is no such thing as a cure-all pill or panacea in this world. The fact that the party in power was making that claim deserves the outright rejection of the proposed federal shift.

The rule is simple. When it’s too good to be true, then it’s untrue.

So what is the alternative?

It would be best to stick to the unitary system of government. It suits to the Filipino temperament. It is something every Filipino knows. Federalism is an unknown animal for them.

But it does not mean keeping the unitary government is enough. It has many weaknesses and it’s important for the people in power to take moves to strengthen it.

A revolution in local governance is currently taking place among the LGUs. It makes sense to keep the propeller of revolution to continue churning to fulfill the country’s development objectives.

FILIPINO JOURNALISTS IN DISSENT

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

The traditions of dissent among Filipino journalists run deep. When the goings got rough, certain Filipino journalists did not only wield the pen, but joined the armed struggle as well, particularly during the Marcos dictatorship.

Four journalists stood out as prototypes of the dissenting traditions among Filipino journalists: Antonio Zumel, Antonio Ma. Nieva, Henry Romero, and Noe Alejandrino.

Three of the four journalists did organizing works for Filipino workers; the other one engaged in organizing farmers.

In the early 1950s, Zumel joined the now defunct Philippine Herald newspaper as a copy boy, rising to become a reporter and later a desk editor. He later joined the Manila Bulletin newspaper as news editor.

Since his days at the Philippine Herald, Zumel worked to organize media workers into unions to increase their bargaining power. Unknown to many people, Zumel was undergoing political transformation; he became immersed in Marxist ideas.

Jose Ma. Sison recruited him to become a member and one of the leading cadres of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). When Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law in 1972 and plunged the country into a dictatorship,  Zumel was among those who immediately went underground.

Zumel headed the National Democratic Front (NDF), the CPP’s political arm, edited "Ang Bayan" newsletter, the CPP’s main organ, and "Liberation" newsletter, the NDF’s main publication. For many years, Zumel was a member of the CPP central committee.

In the late 1980s, Zumel joined Sison in Utrecht, the Netherlands and did revolutionary works in that part of the world. He died of diabetes in 2001.

Nieva was a media union organization, poet, short story writer, and journalist, who strongly opposed the Marcos dictatorship. He was Zumel’s associate, as they both worked as editors at the Manila Bulletin.

Nieva did not go underground, as he chose to lead the legal left by organizing media workers not only in the Manila Bulletin, but in other newspapers as well, particularly the crony newspapers – Daily Express and Times Journal – at the height of the Marcos dictatorship.

Nieva actively organized media workers even after the downfall of the Marcos dictatorship in 1986. He was among the leading organizers of two organizations: the Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Media ng Pilipinas (Kammpi) and the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP).

In 1995, Nieva assumed the post of secretary-general of the Prague-based International Organization of Journalists (IOJ), the first Asian to hold that position. He served in this post until his death from natural cases in 1997.

Henry Romero worked as proofreader, reporter, and desk editor at the Manila Bulletin. But without the knowledge of his superiors, he actively organized workers in Cavite. In fact, he did organizing works outside of mass media.

In 1974, Romero disappeared without a trace. At that time, the word “salvage” was being introduced as part of the lexicon of the political activists. No, it did mean to save, but its opposite, which is summary execution.

It is widely believed that Romero was among the first victims of summary executions under the Marcos dictatorship. His remains have yet to be found.

Noe Alejandrino led a double life. He was a reporter of the weekly "The Economic Monitor," the first business newspaper in the country.

As a cadre of the old Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP) and leader of the Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Pilipinas (HMB), the PKP’s military arm, Noe did organizing works of farmers in the Central Luzon area, which was a PKP-HMB stronghold.

Unknown to his editors and colleagues in the newspaper, Noe shuttled back and forth to his base of operations in Central Luzon, even as pounded the beat, which included the then Ministry of Public Works.

Colleagues described him as quiet, and reserved, qualities which are hardly found in a Pampagueno. They saw him filing his reports during Fridays, after which he disappeared to go back to Pampanga or elsewhere.

The late Willy Baun, Economic Monitor editor, once told me that Noe was the grandson of Casto Alejandrino, popularly known as GY. Ka Casto was a long standing member of the PKP central committee and political bureau (Politburo) that ran the day-to-day affairs of the old PKP.

Ka Casto was among the contemporaries of the Lava brothers – Vicente, Francisco, Jose and Jesus – who led the PKP in the 1940s to the 1960s. He was among those who nurtured the PKP young leaders like Jose Ma. Sison, who later broke away to form his faction – the Communist Party of the Philippines.

Willy told me too that Noe was among those HMB operatives, who did summary executions of the cattle rustlers and other criminal elements in the Pampanga, Bulacan and Nueva Ecija areas.

Noe was reported killed in an encounter in 1980 with military elements belonging to the then paramilitary PC-INP, the forerunner of today’s PNP. A grenade launcher hit him in Barangay Wakas in Bocaue, Bulacan.

It is difficult to say if the dissenting tradition still exists among present-day journalists, particularly the younger ones. But it is safe to say that many journalists are opposed to the re-emergence of authoritarianism.

ENTER MOCHA, PERSIDA, TERESITA

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

IT used to be the trio of Imelda Marcos, Miriam Defensor Santiago, and Kris Aquino who humored the Filipino people with their unwitting gaffes, jokes, and unabashed charm.

Now, the fumbling trio of Mocha Uson, Percida Acosta, and Teresita de Castro has taken the stage to provide the people with unbridled fun in these trying times.

Trailing closely is the pugnacious triumvirate of Sarah Duterte, Sandra Cam, and Sass Sasot, who all have gained notoriety for their demonstration of hostility to whoever they have taken fancy.

What has happened to the Philippines?

It’s easy to say the country has gone to the dogs, as indicated by the ongoing assaults on women of unparalleled substance: Leila De Lima, Leni Robredo, Ma. Lourdes Sereno, and Conchita Carpio-Morales.

But when those two sets of disdainful female characters have taken the center stage, the conclusion is simple: the country has gone nuts.

Imelda is aging, Miriam is dead, and Kris has taken a low public profile. For quite a time, they humored the Filipino people with their antics and quotes – quotable or not, forgettable or unforgettable.

Who would forget Imelda’s time-honored retort when an American journalist asked her about the perceived emergence of a new set of thieving cronies allied with the Marcos dictatorship?

Her reply that “some are smarter than the others” drew international jeers, as she showed her slip. It was her way of confirming the existence of those shadowy characters, who virtually raped the Philippine economy.

Imelda could not hide his disdain on the Filipino elite, who looked down on her despite her emergence as the other half of the Marcos conjugal dictatorship. “They are poor people with money,” she said with an air of condescension.

Later, Imelda became somewhat of a psychic, as she cited the cosmic holes where cosmic energy passed through to energize the Philippines. Many people found her statements outrageously funny.

A Singaporean journalist told me during the waning years of the Marcos dictatorship that having Imelda was “fun.” She said: “Without Imelda, the Philippines would be impoverished. You would die of boredom.”

Miriam took the country by storm, as she projected a tough image that she could lead the Filipinos to the Promised Land. She nearly won the presidency in 1992 in what could be regarded the toughest presidential elections the country had in the post-Marcos era.

She later became a senator but not without leaving her own mark of wry humor and entertainment. Miriam is not known for legislation; she does not have any landmark legislation.

But she provided the entertainment of the irreverent but cerebral kind. She picked up fights with every character she disliked and labelled them with condescending epithets.

She branded a minor functionary a “fungus faced.” When she had a bitter fight with Ping Lacson, she called him “Pinky” in reference to his sexual orientation to which even Ping hardly responded.

When she had differences with Raul Roco over certain issues, Miriam publicly said that Raul was winking at her. At that time, Raul had an eye tic, that caused involuntary winking of his left eye.

Raul’s answer was a classic response: “Nuts.”

Miriam later metamorphosed into a lawmaker, who gained national prominence for her stand-up gig lines. Speaking before students, Miriam popularized these lines:

“Holdaper: Holdap ito, ibigay mo ang pera mo.

“Congressman: Bakit mo ako hinoholdap? Hindi mo ba alam na congressman ako?

“Holdaper: Hah, congressman ka pala. Puwes ibigay mo ang pera namin.”

Kris is notorious for the public discussions of her private life and its salacious details. She is the maverick in a family known for its sense of decency.

She has given the country a trail of her indiscretions that included contracting a sexually transmitted disease from an ex-lover and stormy relations with another ex-lover, a married man, who, despite a child by her, was never accepted in her family.

Lately, Kris has somewhat matured. Her recent public statements hardly reflect the crazy things she did when she was younger.

While Imelda, Miriam, and Kris held certain level of sophistication, the fumbling trio of Mocha, Percida, and Teresita has gained fame for exhibiting idiocy of the raw kind.

Mocha is now known as the queen of fake news, lies, and deception. She issues periodic blogs that have been subjects of embarrassing fact checks. She has become a laughing stock for their erratic details.

Mocha is scorned for her lack of basic intelligence and humility. Despite the overwhelming public backlash and indignation for her shortsighted views and wrong details, Mocha does not have the moral courage to issue any public apology.

Persida is the opposite of Miriam. She have kept on issuing statements without knowing they are wrong. Although a lawyer (she placed fourth place in the Bar exams after four tries), Percida is not known to exhibit cerebral tenacity and depth. She is witless and humorless unlike Miriam.

When undergoing screening by the Judicial and Bar Council on her nomination for the vacant sat in the Supreme Court, retired Angelina Gutierrez Sandoval openly chided her for her failure to read the High Court’s decision on the issue of the burial of the carcass of dictator Ferdinand Marcos: “Magbasa-basa ka muna, hija.”

“She is the ampao, who heads the PAO,” a lawyer of note once remarked about Percida.

Teresita de Castro is the square-jawed Supreme Court justice, who spewed fire and brimstone on television in her two appearances before the Umali impeachment committee.

She narrated every alleged crime in the book Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno had committed, but could not say with certainty of any impeachable offense by the Chief Justice.

Whenever she was asked of any impeachable offense by the Chief Justice, she offered stony silence.

She was a picture of pugnacity in her two TV appearances, but she was unmasked as the lady justice who felt bitterness when a junior magistrate was named as chief justice.

The trio of Sara, Sandra, and Sasot (a fake woman) – or the three S – is notorious for their sharp tongues but not their sharp brains. They have nothing but anger in their hearts. 

COUNTERING THE COUNTERREVOLUTION

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

(This commentary was earlier published by rappler.com)

What is currently taking place is a counterrevolution that seeks to destroy the nation’s restored democracy and replace it with an authoritarian regime that would work for the political redemption of the Marcos family and return to power. President Rodrigo Duterte leads the counterrevolution. He is being aided by two groups – those of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos and former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

The counterrevolution has been initially launched as an anti-drug campaign in the 2016 presidential elections. Since then, it has expanded to include assaults on its democratic institutions, including the Supreme Court, Commission on Human Rights, and Office of the Ombudsman. It seeks to weaken democratic traditions too, including the adherence to human rights, rule of law, and due process.

The intention is to destroy the gains of the 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution that toppled the Marcos dictatorship and its 2001 sequel, where the military withdrew support from then president Joseph Estrada, leading him to resign the presidency. The immediate objective is to prove that the two revolutions have been failures to improve Philippine society and only the reinstitution of a populist, albeit authoritarian, regime could save the country.

The political goal is to reinstall a new dictatorship, enabling Duterte, or his envisioned successor, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr, to rule beyond his term in 2022. They want to revise history to favor the Marcoses.

The coalition of authoritarian forces composed of Duterte, the Marcoses, and Arroyo are pursuing their counterrevolution through two political routes: declaring a revolutionary government, or RevGov, to jettison the 1987 Constitution; or amending the Constitution to change the presidential system by a parliamentary system and replace the unitary form of government by a federal system.

Mr Duterte intends to establish a RevGov because it appears to be the way to discard the 1987 Constitution, which serves as the anchor of the 30 years of restored democracy. The democratic ideals and traditions embodied in the 1987 Constitution have tied his hands, frustrating his attempts to cut corners.

But he is not gaining ground. Major sectors, including the dominant Roman Catholic Church, the defense and military establishment, and the business sector have been sending cold signals, virtually rejecting his RevGov in favor of restored democracy.

The November 30 nationwide show of force by the authoritarian groups was a dismal failure. Several rallies were held in major cities, but they attracted only a handful of participants. They hardly created any impression in the national consciousness.

Conflicting themes

Two conflicting themes dominate the Philippine postwar experience: democracy and authoritarianism. This dichotomy of political themes is evident over the past 7 decades. Pro-democracy forces want the democratic institutions and structures to thrive and the democratic processes to flourish. They believe in pluralism, where various belief systems, world views, and advocacy have spaces for coexistence and growth.

Pro-democracy forces are represented by middle elements that supported two people power revolutions (EDSA 1 and EDSA 2), political parties and organizations adhering to rule of law, and institutions like Majority Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, and Minority Church, or Christian and non-Christian denominations, their clergy, and various Church-based organizations. They are dubbed as the “Yellow Forces” since they helped to catapult Corazon and Benigno Aquino III into the presidency.

The authoritarian forces live in the past, as shown by persistence to revise history, treat the two people power uprisings (EDSA 1 and EDSA 2) as historical flukes, and re-impose the failed authoritarian system. The modern-day populism appears to be their ideological anchor.

Mr Duterte’s remarks, showing a heavy tilt toward the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, declaration of martial law – either in Mindanao or nationwide, and the establishment of RevGov, have fanned widespread anxiety and fear about a return of authoritarianism. Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, showing unprecedented independence, has said the Armed Forces of the Philippines would not support his RevGov.

Although Philippine postwar liberal democratic system was put in place in 1946, Ferdinand Marcos, elected popularly in 1965 and reelected in 1969, touched the nerve of history by declaring martial law on September 21, 1972, plunging the country into a political experiment on “constitutional authoritarianism” or dictatorship. He was to step down on December 30, 1973, but he prolonged his stay in power by taking advantage of a loophole in the 1935 Constitution.

By a stroke of a pen, Marcos wrote finis to the country’s democratic traditions and destroyed its democratic structures. He abolished Congress, closed down mass media outfits, arrested and jailed without charges tens of thousands of journalists, activists, labor and peasant leaders, religious workers, and opposition stalwarts. He invoked the national security doctrine for martial rule, saying he wanted “to save” the country from the “conspiracy of the oligarchs and the communist rebels.”

After declaring Martial Law in 1972, Marcos ruled for another 13 years, but brought the following: first, centralized corruption, where he earned under-the-table commissions from big ticket state projects and deposited proceeds in foreign banks; second, crony capitalism, where his cronies cornered fat state projects, formed agricultural monopolies, and grabbed monopoly contracts in the services sector; and third, wanton human rights violations, where tens of thousands of anti-Marcos elements were arrested and imprisoned without charges, tortured, and summarily executed, and disappeared involuntarily without trace.

In 1986, the Filipino people, in their exercise of sovereign power, kicked the Marcoses out of Malacañang, toppled his dictatorship, and sent them to a 5-year exile in the US. But it happened not without leaving a country destroyed by their kleptocracy, or the use of power to plunder and accumulate ill-gotten wealth estimated at between $5 billion to $10 billion.

Democratic agenda

Although the counterrevolution has hardly gained ground due to the constitutional provisions providing iron-clad guarantees to prevent future political adventure in authoritarianism, the country’s pro-democracy forces have to move fast and assume a democratic agenda to prevent the Duterte counterrevolution from succeeding.

For instance, they could press for the impeachment, resignation, or ouster of Duterte, whose bloody regime has claimed the lives of thousands of victims in extrajudicial killings (EJKs). They could press for his prosecution before the International Criminal Court, where a suit of crimes against humanity has been lodged against Duterte and 10 others. Or they could continue fighting against the assaults on democratic institutions.

For instance, pro-democracy forces have bonded to help and defend Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, the junior magistrate, whom then president Benigno Aquino Jr named to lead the judiciary. She faces an impeachment suit perceived to have been concocted by the trio of Mr Duterte, the Marcoses, and Arroyo. There are indications she could weather it because the charges are weak.

Ousting Mr Duterte is not complete. The post-Duterte era requires a democratic agenda to erase authoritarianism. For instance, pro-democracy forces could press the creation of a new commission to investigate those EJKs, identify the culprits, and recommend their criminal prosecution. They could redirect the anti-drug war to complete adherence to the rule of law and due process. They could work for the reeducation of law enforcement agencies on democratic ideals.

The post-Duterte government could pursue a diplomacy offensive to regain support of allies like the US and European Union and press for a redirection of foreign policy to acknowledge, adhere, and implement those international and bilateral agreements, to which the Philippines is a signatory, and other binding decisions by international bodies. They could work for an economic diplomacy offensive too.

Moreover, it could reinstitute the anticorruption campaign of the Aquino administration and reimpose the anticorruption ideals sidelined by the focus on the anti-drug war. They could likewise work to erase all vestiges of authoritarianism.

Probably the most important is a common but sustained initiative of the pro-democracy forces to “demarcosify” Philippine society by explaining to the Filipino people the Marcos legacy, which includes massive human rights violations, crony capitalism, and massive plunder of the national coffers.  - rappler.com

ESCAPE THROUGH THE BACKDOOR

By Philip M. Lustre Jr. 

Dictator Ferdinand Marcos did not make any distinction of his enemies. Any critic was fair game for Marcos. He did not distinguish if critics belonged to the legitimate political opposition, reformist mass organizations, or extremist groups espousing armed revolution against his government.

During the martial law period that covered 1972-1986, Marcos hounded and harassed his critics without letup. They were arrested and jailed without charges, tortured in most instances, and summarily executed in some. He also surreptitiously ordered their involuntary disappearances, giving rise to the Philippine version of “desaparecidos” (disappeared).

But not all slept during the dark days of our country. Political opposition against the September 21, 1972 declaration of martial law jelled and grew. A number of his political antagonists escaped the country only to go elsewhere and resume their opposition to his martial law regime, which later metamorphosed into a one-man rule.

When these political oppositionists could not escape through the front door, or the legitimate way, they went out through the backdoor. That was escaping through the circuitous route of going to either Zamboanga City, or Jolo in the South, travel by boat through Sulu Sea, and finally to Sabah. From Sabah, they first took flights to either Hong Kong or Kuala Lumpur and later to the United States, their final destination.

Heherson Alvarez, Cecille Guidote

Heherson Alvarez, a student leader at the University of the Philippines, represented Isabela in the 1971 Constitution Convention that drafted the 1973 Constitution, which eventually became the blueprint of the Marcos dictatorship. Cecille Guidote, who came from a landed family in Manila, was an acclaimed theater scholar, who founded and led the Philippine Educational Theater Association (PETA). They were about to get married when Marcos declared martial law.

Because Heherson was among the Constitutional Convention delegates, who opposed any term extension for Ferdinand Marcos or wife Imelda as his replacement, He was a marked man. Marcos ordered his military henchmen to hunt, arrest, and jail Heherson. Since he declared martial law, Marcos could do it even without any arrest warrant and formal charges against him.

When I was a reporter covering the Senate, Heherson Alvarez, who later became a senator in the post-Marcos Senate, confirmed that he escaped when Marcos declared martial because he was on the order of battle, or the list of people, who faced arrest and detention. Had he not escaped through the backdoor, he could have faced prolonged detention without charges or even torture.

But it was not easy for Heherson. According to Aquilino Pimentel Jr.’s book “Martial Law in the Philippines: My Story,” which contains his memoirs, Heherson Alvarez, a wanted man upon martial law declaration, told him he hid in the houses of friends for six months. But it was businessman Ricardo Delgado, “who went out of his way to help me escape,” Nene Pimentel said quoting Heherson.

Nene said quoting Heherson: “After successfully eluding the Marcos military on land, I hitched a ride in a small vessel in Manila that was bound for Hong Kong through Kota Kinabalu in Sabah. The captain of the ship agreed to smuggle me out of the country after I assured him that I was a social democrat, not a communist.”

According to Nene Pimentel, Heherson went to Paris from Hong Kong because at that time Filipinos who went there were not required to present visas. He laid low there for a while as he waited for a chance to the United States, where Cecille was already there, waiting for him.

In the absence of any formal ceremony, Heherson and Cecille had a “matrimonia de consciencia,” which has made them husband and wife. The exigency of those days prompted them to get marriage in an expeditious way. In the U.S., Heherson Alvarez along with Raul Manglapus, a former senator and Department of Foreign Affairs secretary, organized the Movement for Free Philippines, which became a strong lobby group that opposed the Marcos dictatorship in the U.S.

Other escapees

According to Nene Pimentel’s book, 1971 Constitution Convention Delegate Bonifacio Gillego, who later became a lawmaker in post-Marcos Congress, Charito Planas, Gaston Ortigas, Pacita LaO Manglapus, Raul’s wife, and their three sons, Raul Jr., Bobby, and Francis,and academic Gerry Jumat and wife Boots Ayson took that the southern backdoor to escape the Marcos dictatorship. They all settled in the United States, where they carried the anti-dictatorship struggle.

Nene said: “Gillego, Planas and Gillego told me of the harrowing experiences they went through their getaways. They shared with me their hair-raising chance encounters with people who knew them but who did not appear to have recognized them, or their near brushes with military agents. Gillego had to disguise themselves, the latter donning a wig, and had to use assumed identities. Charito wore a nun’s habit. Mrs. Manglapus was ‘Portia Molina’ in her escape, while Gerry and Boots Jumat used their ethnic connections with the Tausugs of of Sulu and Sabah to elude the Marcos rule.”

According to Nene, Raul Manglapus was on a stopover in Tokyo en route to the U.S. to deliver a speech when Marcos declared martial law in 1972. Upon his family’s advice, Manglapus proceeded to the U.S. but did not return to Manila. His family tried to follow him in the U.S., but Marcos did not allow them to leave through legal means.

Through the help of Joey Ortiz, a Philippine Consulate official, assisted Manglapus to go to Washington D.C. to become a political refugee. Ortiz lost his job. Meanwhile, Mrs. Manglapus and his three sons decided to leave through the backdoor. They first went to Zamboanga City. From there, they went to Sitangkai using a fast moving kumpit.

From Sitangkai, an island in the Tawi Tawi province, they went to the town of Tawau in Sabah and took refuge in a Catholic convent there. After a few days, they went to Kuala Lumpur, where they took a plane going to the U.S.

But escaping through the backdoor was not easy, according to Nene Pimentel. The Sulu Sea had pirates. Moreover, Philippine Navy boats were also manning that part. Still, the opposition leaders managed to escape through the southern backdoor to fight another battle on another day.

NO TO MILITARY ADVENTURISM

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

THE proposed revolutionary government requires the support and participation of the defense and military establishment.

Without the tacit approval of the Armed Forces, as an institution, the proposed declaration of a revolutionary government is doomed even before its birth.

That is why Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana's statement that the defense and military would not support the proposed revolutionary government is quite reassuring.

It was a virtual slap on the face of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, who had the effrontery to float this idea despite the three decades of a solid government under the post-EDSA restored democracy.

Lorenzana's message to the Commander-in-Chief was simple. The entire defense and military establishment is in no mood for another era of military adventurism.

There are two questions arising from Lorenzana's statement? Can we trust Lorenzan's words? Can the AFP's avowed avoidance of military adventurism hold?

Military officials can definitely be trusted. They are trained to make decisions and give their final words. They are essentially men and women of honor and integrity.

Even in the military schools, particularly the Philippine Military Academy, the country's premier military school, prospective military officials are trained to speak out the truth even on the first day they step on their premises.

Lorenzana, a retired military general, is not inclined to engage in treachery, perfidy, and foolishness. He is a man of honor, whose words could be trusted.

History shows that military officials could be trusted with their words. When the Lt. Gen. Fidel Ramos, as AFP vice chief of staff and PC-INP chief, said "yes" to Juan Ponce Enrile's proposed breakaway from dictator Ferdinand Marcos, his word signaled the start of the fateful 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution.

When he said "yes" to support the fledgling government of Cory Aquino, Ramos was instrumental in frustrating the seven military coups against the Cory government.

For the first three years of the Cory government, Ramos as either AFP chief of staff or defense secretary, moved to block and stop one coup after the other, becoming the stabiliizing factor of the restored democracy.

He did not in anyway waver. Even at the height of the 1989 military coup, the seventh and last in the series, Ramos showed tremendous resiliency and grace under pressure.

Incidentally, the 1989 coup was the biggest, bloodiest, and longest coup (it lasted five days). It was the most traumatic, as brother officers shot each other; the same with foot soldiers.It was a winner-take-call situation.

The 1989 coup virtually finished the unfinished business of military adventurism. The specter of a politicized military did not happen except on 2001 Second EDSA People Power Revolution, when the military, this time as an institution, withdrew support from Erap Estrada, the hard drinking and incompetent president.

Even at the height of the "God Save the Queen" putsch, the third of the seven coups, in November, 1986, military generals displayed their words of honor.

When Maj. Gen. Renato de Villa, then chief of the PC-INP, felt nervous about the loyalty of Maj. Gen. Rodolfo Canieso, then the Army chief, he went to him to question where he stood.

This was a big no-no in the military culture and traditions, where a PMA underclassman questioned an upperclassman. De Villa belongs to PMA Batch 1957; Canieso, PMA Batch 1956.

"Rene, I'm with you all the way," Canieso told de Villa to express support to the fledgling restored democracy. The conversation lasted five minutes; it was enough for two first class warriors.

It was a classic response, so similar to the Spanish Civil War, where Loyalist and Falangist forces fought toe and nail. "Somos o no somos?" Are you with me or not?

Incidentally, the "God Save the Queen" military adventure finally ended the partnership of Enrile and Ramos, or the bond of brotherhood they developed in the first EDSA uprising.

By telling the entire military chain of command to disobey any orders from Enrile and his RAM supporters at the Ministry of National Defense, Ramos gave his stamp of approval for the Cory Aquino government. History shows he was right all along.

Over the last 27 years, except the brief interregnums in 2001 (EDSA Dos) and 2003 (Oakwood Mutiny), AFP's avoidance of any military adventurism has been holding.

In fact, the defense and military establishment continues to evolve as an institution completely loyal and devoted to the 1987 Constitution. The public perception of the AFP as an institution of constitutional soldiers is quite prevalent too.

Reforms have been undertaken to strengthen the AFP as an institution. Over the years, the reforms include devising ways to stop massive corruption in the military establishment and inculcating democratic values like human rights and the rule of law among soldiers.

Their actuation shows they accept those values and submit to the constitutional precept of civilian supremacy over the military. Never did they ever question the civilian supremacy despite the political noises, which are common among democracies.

In fact, the military leadership has taken steps to insulate the defense and military establishment from political pressures and grandstanding. In fact, military leaders have indicated they are comfortable with the current set up.

Hence, Lorenzana's statement showing AFP's refusal to support a revolutionary government is most logical under the current situation.

The proverbial argument is the classic "why fix it when it's ain't broke." The participation and support of the defense and military establishment could mean military adventurism, which the current crop of military officers and foot soldiers have learned to disavow over the years.

In brief, it would appear their own Commander-in-Chief, in a moment of undefined frenzy, has totally misread the prevailing mood among military officers and soldiers under his command.

In brief, the Commander-in-Chief hardly knows the people in his command, as he apparently thinks that they would be at his beck and call just like a private army.

The proposed revolutionary government, at this point, is a counterflow to the march of history. It is founded on ignorance of the flow of history.

The other day, I was with two friends, both retired military officials (a general and a colonel). Over cups of coffee, we discussed the issue of revolutionary government floated by some souls in social media.

We came out with the conclusion that it would not generate support in the military and eventually fail. We discussed its lack of support among the local intelligentsia, as its supporters are men and women of dubious reputation.

The retired general said: "Ikaw ba'y magpapakamatay kay Vivian Velez (will you lay down your life for Vivian)?" End of conversation.

THE 'LUGAO' VENDOR OF YLAYA STREET

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

THIS narrative is not about Vice President Leni Robredo, who was maliciously tagged as “lugao queen” by paid propagandists and bloggers of the madman and BBM. This is about the comely vendor, who sold congee (lugao), fried tofu, and lumpia at the sidewalk of Ylaya street in Tondo in the mid-1970s.

I was then a college student at the University of the East. After my evening classes, I would take a jeepney ride on my way to Divisoria and go to her makeshift stall along Ylaya to eat lugao mixed with shredded pieces of cow’s innards (isaw, tualla, or heart) and a piece of fried lumpia. For a while, I was one of her regular customers.

After taking my little meal, I would take another jeepney ride to go home in the sub-district of Gagalangin in Tondo. I normally took my dinner at around 11 pm, when I was deep in my books and studies. That was part of my daily routine during those days.

As a regular customer, I came to know her name: Lorna. I must confess I was drawn to her because of her “morena” (brown) skin complexion. She looked like a piece of art with her smooth brown skin glistening under the shining moon. She appeared like a brass goddess to my eyes. I liked her. I was mesmerized by her brown beauty.

Lorna noticed the heavy books I usually carried and borrowed from the school library.  She perfectly understood I was a college student. When I asked her if she was going to school, she told me she stopped after completing her elementary education in one of the public schools in Tondo.

“Nagtrabaho na lang ako. Eto nagtitinda ng lugao (I went to work instead. Here I am selling lugao), Lorna said. “Ang hilig ko’y maghanapbuhay hindi mag-aral (my preference was to work, not to study),” she said, as he shredded with a knife a small piece of meat to be mixed in a bowl of lugao. It cost me a peso for that bowl.

She told me her daily routine was to bring at least two big cauldrons of lugao from their house in the old Kagitingan street, two kilometers away from Ylaya, using a four-wheeled pushcart (cariton). By sundown, they would put up the makeshift stall on the busy street, which is part the busy Divisoria commercial district.

I must confess that I was a little intrigued by Lorna’s beauty. So, I flirted. Every night I dropped by her stall, I whispered a single line, which I felt somehow registered my presence in her consciousness. It was a single line, which I felt tickled her heart.

I would go near her to whisper that devastating single line: “Ang ganda-ganda mo naman (you’re too beautiful).” Afterwards, I clamped down and said nothing until I finished my bowl of lugao, and, if my personal funds permitted, a piece of fried lumpia or tofu mixed with suka’t toyo (vinegar and soy sauce). Then, I bade her goodbye and quietly left for home.

I habitually whispered those words every night I dropped by her stall. I saw her smiling, obviously scintillated by those little words of admiration. Although she preferred to ignore me for whatever reason, we did not exchange words after I delivered the little message of the night.

But she did her own quiet repartee for my advances. I noticed that the size of the piece of meat she mixed with my lugao was getting bigger every night. At a certain point, I noticed it was more than double the regular size. How lucky I could be, I told myself. For about a month, this was the unmistakable trend.

One night, I failed to drop by her stall. I was with my co-majors doing a group paper in a certain major subject. I was the group leader and I had to be with my fellow students. Indeed, I was majoring in sociology in my undergraduate studies.

The following night I drop by to eat my usual bowl of lugao. Lorna met me with a big smile and said: “Uy, bakit hindi ka dumaan kagabi (how come you did not drop by last night)?” I was stunned by her remarks, but said I was busy doing our group works. Yes, she seemed to have been checking my attendance.

Quietly, I was telling myself I was already a winner and my devastating single liner was effective. I was on her radar. She was indeed checking my presence in her busy soul. “Tsinetsek pala niya ang attendance (she was checking the attendance),” I told myself.

No, I did not have the heart to court her. I was just a little mischievous during those days. Mi corazon caraja (my foolish heart), so they say in Spanish. It was enough for me to flirt.

But it was something that was not meant to end on a good note. One night, while eating at her stall, one of the street toughies of Ylaya quietly went to my side and whispered: “Pare, hawak ng siga iyan dito iyan. Huwag mong ligawan. Baka magripuhan ka (she’s the girlfriend of the street toughie here. Don’t dare to court her. You’ll get a leak in your body).”

I tried my best to appear calm and poised in that situation. I replied: “Ah, ganoon ba? Walang problema (so, that’s it? No problem).”

Next day, I did not dare to go again to her stall. I perfectly understood the message. The jealous lover could be after my neck. After all, it was not my intention to pursue her. 

I deliberately avoided that street and pass by another street to go home. No more lugao for me. No more those little acts of flirtation.

In my mind, it did not pay to go against the flow when I did not have the will. I quietly finished my studies and pursue a career in journalism.