Duterte 2017

Biglang may nagbabasa ng 2017 post na ito. While the ICC confirmation of charges hearings reminded painfully of Duterte’s horrible drug war, this piece zeroes in on a specific point in time, soon after the killing of Kian, when it was all just too heartbreaking, infuriating, and scary, and all we could do was despair for nation. Good to be reminded. #BeforeCovid

Duterte’s drug war & the “hearsay” divide

August 20, 2017

Recently President Duterte admitted na nagkamali siya when he promised to rid the country of shabu in six months, imposible daw pala, even in the next five years, it just cannot be done, he says, by a single president over just one term.

I thought it might mean a CHANGE in strategy, from killing killing killing alleged addicts and pushers without due process to finally policing customs and coastlines and preventing the smuggling of shabu and it’s component chemicals into the country. But no.

He [said] having a long coastline to watch over and thousands of islands to guard make it difficult to prevent the entry of illegal drugs.

“We do not have the equipment, kulang man (It’s not enough). And you know the coastline,” he added.

He made us a new promise instead:

“I assure you, by the time I make my—kung buhay pa ako (if I am still alive)—five years from now, drugs will be at its lowest,” he said.

Too soon Bato’s police were back on the streets big time, in multiple synchronous operations across Bulacan, and later in Manila. Killing alleged addicts and dealers without due process, puro hearsay, mostly info solicited from barangay peeps and neighbors, atbp., as if we didn’t know how easy it is to point fingers, especially if under duress of authorities with quotas to meet. Hearsay, sabi-sabi, is good enough in this environment, and once you’re on that list, it is said, you’re on the list forever, never mind if you’ve been rehabbed or you were clean to begin with at napagdiskitahan lang, which may have been the case with Kian.

In an unusual move, allies of President Rodrigo Duterte in the Senate on Friday condemned the killing of a 17-year-old senior high school student in Caloocan City, with some pushing for a probe into the boy’s death and those of scores of suspects in the past bloody week described as the deadliest since the start of the government’s drug war in July last year.

This is one of the rare instances during which senators who belong to the majority caucus in the Senate have publicly spoken against the killings related to Duterte’s brutal and unrelenting war on drugs.

The policemen who shot to death Kian Loyd Delos Santos on Wednesday night were not only abusive but also “killers and criminals,” according to Sen. Francis Escudero.  “The CCTV footage and eyewitness account clearly show that the boy was killed.”

Five more years? We cannot have five more years of this. It is too painful for the body politic, Mr. President, sir. And it is dangerous: what monsters are we turning our police forces into?  And we the people, do we really want to become desensitized to inhumane treatment by government? Read Yen Makabenta’s It’s not fun waking up in a ‘narco-state.

When Duterte absolves the police of wrongdoing in the drug war, no matter what the abuses, I believe he is crossing a red line in constitutional government. It is dangerous to himself and to his presidency.

It is not explained away by protesting against due process of law and human rights.

The presidential rhetoric is both inflationary and demoralizing.

Believe it or not, the police profession is supposed to exercise intellectual leadership in the criminal justice system. The police must take the lead in the fight against crime and violence.

Not all shabu addicts are bad people who get violent and criminal under the influence and who deserve to be eliminated just like that. And even addicts who do get violent and criminal do not deserve to be killed without due process and rehab options. We are better than this.

But yeah, our world would be a better place without shabu, and it’s weird that the president isn’t trying harder to turn off the supply. The real job is to stop both the manufacture here and the smuggling-in of shabu and its components. The customs shabu fiasco was the perfect opportunity for the president to demonstrate that all his tough talk vs. drugs and corruption is not just talk and empty threats. Instead he chose to prop up and make excuses for Faeldon.

“But Faeldon, I will stand by him. He’s really honest. Kaya lang nalusutan siya because lahat diyan sa Customs, corrupt. My God,” Duterte said on Wednesday in his speech in Malacañang during the celebration of the 19th anniversary of the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption.

“I hope I would not offend any particular person but almost all [are corrupt]. Sila ‘yong magagandang bahay…magaganda ang kotse [They are those who have beautiful houses and beautiful cars] ,” he added.

He hopes he would not offend anyone in particular? I am aghast. Seriously? Ayaw niyang maka-offend ng mga corrupt? Hindi siya nagagalit nang  bongga  sa mga corrupt na ito na tone-tonelada kung magpasok o magpapasok ng shabu?

It’s bad enough that hearsay is acceptable only in cases against the poor and powerless, not in cases against the rich and powerful. What Is worse, when they do have enough evidence and/or search warrants on the rich and powerful, the suspects end up dead. As in, silenced forever.

In the Bureau of Customs naman, a different kind of silencing is going on. In Have we truly become a full-blown narco state? Kit Tatad wonders what Faeldon knows.

…something DU30 may not blithely ignore. Analysts close to this issue, however, believe Faeldon may be in possession of certain sensitive information, which makes it hard for DU30 to get rid of him, unless he volunteers to step down. …Amid the apparent efforts of some quarters to link DU30’s son Paolo, the vice mayor of Davao City, to the dangerous drugs shipment from Xiamen, Faeldon has not said one word clearing him of any suspicion. If Faeldon knows Paolo is not at all involved in any monkey business at the pier, shouldn’t he have come to his defense after the customs broker Mark Taguba mentioned his name, quoting wild rumors, in a congressional hearing? He did not.

…The problem is, a photo has surfaced in the social media showing Paolo in a friendly pose with Kenneth Dong, the alleged middleman in the illegal P6.4 billion drug shipment. And some people are giving undue importance to it. No one is saying the young man has any fascination for any narco king—whether it be Burma’s late opium king Khun Sa, or Colombia’s Pablo Escobar, or Mexico’s Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman. But by linking him to Kenneth Dong and the rest of his narco chain, his enemies clearly want to show his guilt by association.

The president himself has minced no words about how much worse the corruption is than he thought, shabu-related corruption in particular.

He [said] that the war on drugs had exposed so many people involved in the business of illegal drugs, it was like pressing “worms out of a can.”

“I didn’t have an idea that there are hundreds of thousands of people already in the drug business. What makes it worse is they are cooperated now by people in government, especially those in elected positions. So, it will be government versus government,” he added.

There’s the rub. Government vs. Government. Big shots vs. big shots. Tila nga napakaraming very-important-people and their networks ang tatamaan. Napakaraming mawawalan ng trabaho (kawawa naman). At magkakaalaman, mabubuking (sa wakas), kung sinosino nga ba sa mga honourable na iyan ang sinasandalan at dinadatungan ng mga drug lord. Sinosino ba sa mga honourable na iyan na nagmamalinis ang mga kalaban pala, mga kaaway pala, ng taong-bayan. Clear lines would finally be drawn, and that would be oh so good for nation.

I’d have thought that a showdown was right up Digong’s alley. I thought he might be the anti-hero hero who would end narco rule and institute systemic changes, set things right, no matter what. Alas, our astig prez seems to be intimidated out of his wits. Too much baggage?

“I have to stop drugs, really stop. And it will stop,” he said in a speech during a tourism event in Davao City Friday night.  “I will kill you if you destroy my country and you start f****** with my children,” he added.

“My children”? Slip of the tongue? Or just another bad joke.

EDSA@40 Recalling the Boycott

Top of my Facebook feed 22 Feb was a video posted by quo-warranto’d CJ Meilou Sereno —  “Paano Kaya Nangyari ang EDSA People Power” — na tungkol lang sa Enrile-Ramos-RAM defection after Marcos cheated in the snap election, and how the people came to support them and stop tanks.  Di man lang nabanggit si Cory and her audacious non-violent civil disobedience campaign and the six days of crony boycotts that had the economy reeling in the run-up to EDSA.

Pinapalabas na all it took for the people to march to EDSA was Cardinal Sin‘s permission, hindi na bale si Butz Aquino na unang nag-call for a non-violent response, at nag-second-the-motion lang sort of si Cardinal, as in, “those of you who wish to help should do so…”  makalipas ang twenty minutes of pagdadalawang-isip. Walang acknowledgement o pagkilala na may pinanggalingan na higanteng protesta ang milyon-milyong Coryista; wala ring paliwanag kung bakit nga ba kumilos ang mga Coryista para protektahan si Enrile na “architect” of martial law — siya ang sumulat ng Proclamation 1081 — at kilalang crony ni Marcos.

Sa totoo lang, kung hindi sa higanteng protesta ni Cory, kung hindi siya nagtawag ng boycott of crony businesses to bring down the economy and compel Marcos to step down, na agad sinakyan ng milyon-milyong Coryista, malamang ay nilangaw ang EDSA.

Salamat sa biyuda ni Ninoy, kakaiba na noon ang ihip ng hangin. Mapanghimagsik na ang timpla ng taongbayan, punong-puno bigla ng pag-asa, sabik sa naamoy na pagbabago, noong bisperas ng EDSA. Kung walang naganap na defection, malamang ay sa Mendiola at Malacañang nagmartsa at umeksena ang People Power.

From Himagsikan sa EDSA–Walang Himala! (2000)
Mahalagang isaisip na noong nag-aklas sina Enrile at Ramos, pitong (7) araw nang nag-aaklas ang mga Coryista. Ibang klaseng pag-aaklas nga lang – hindi armadong pakikibaka kundi simpleng pagsuway sa Awtoridad at di-pagtangkilik sa mga produkto at serbisyo ng crony economy. Tandang-tanda ko pa ang maigting na sigla at tensyon ng panahong iyon. High na high at sakay na sakay sa kampanyang boykot ang sampung milyong Pilipino na bumoto kay Cory – binitawan ang nakasanayang peryodiko at lumipat sa mga diyaryo ng alternative press, iwinaksi ang paboritong beer at gin at nag-trip sa whiskey at lambanog, inisnab ang paboritong softdrinks at dairy products at nawili sa buko juice, dirty ice cream, at kesong puti. Naisip ko na tuwang-tuwa siguro ang mga nasyonalista’t aktibista pagkat sa isang iglap, naibaling ng madlang mamimili ang tangkilik sa mga produkto ng maliliit na negosyong Pinoy. Higit pa, nagustuhan namin ang natikman at nalanghap na pagbabago. Namulat sa katotohanang okey din pala ang lokal at puwede nga palang magbago ng ugali o kabihasnan.

From EDSA Uno, Dos Tres (2013)
The first six days of the boycott are always glossed over, remembered only, if at all, as prelude, along with the snap elections.

Yet those early days were extraordinary and quite memorable on a personal plane for the millions who voted for Cory in the Snap Election of 1986, and, when she was cheated, who merrily complied with her boycott call and changed consumption habits overnight. There was nothing ideological about it, no sense of alternative economics as a long-term option. Rather, it was purely political, to derail the economy, and only until Marcos conceded to Cory.

It was a heady, giddy, intoxicating time of engagement in political change, beyond the ballot. The boycott was in the realm of the personal, on the level of where to bank and shop, which newspapers to read, what dairy products to feast on, what softdrinks and beer to get high on. And because it wasn’t always clear which brands were tainted and which were not, some of us played safe and simply eschewed all advertised goods. We turned to unbranded homegrown stuff like kesong puti, “dirty” ice cream, fresh fruits and juices, and local spirits like lambanog. We reveled in it. I remember thinking how thrilled nationalists must be—finally Filipinos, whose buying habits were generally shaped by TV commercials, were finding out that local stuff by small entrepreneurs was good, too, if not better on all sorts of levels.

Best of all, Filipinos were finding that change, while daunting and disconcerting at first, could turn provocative and mind-blowing and consciousness-raising, reinforced by a mosquito press that daily reported how more and more people, left, right and center, rich and poor, were joining the bandwagon, and how crony banks and businesses were running and reeling.

The personal was political, indeed. What a revolutionary mind trip it was.

Of course, the boycott was too good to last. Big Business, crony and not, could not allow it to go on much longer. And to this day, no one likes to talk about it. Bakit kaya.

Marcoleta falls for 9-dash line fiction

About Senators Kiko Pangilinan’s and Rodante Marcoleta’s heated debate over the legitimacy of the West Philippine Sea. 

MARCOLETA FLUNKS ELEMENTARY CARTOGRAPHY
Marlen V. Ronquillo

…  The West Philippine Sea is for real. Philippine laws have codified a specific area called by that name, and maps have been drawn to reflect. In 2012, then-president Benigno Aquino III issued Administrative Order 29 that demarcated the West Philippine Sea as “the Luzon Sea, as well as the waters around, within and adjacent to the Kalayaan Island Group and Bajo de Masinloc, also known as the Scarborough Shoal.”

A law signed by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in November 2024 — Republic Act 12064, or the Philippine Maritime Zones Act — defined anew the portions covered by the West Philippine Sea. That law also asked the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority to prepare the corresponding map covered by that sea, then circulate that map in the country and beyond.

In her many warnings about China’s territorial ambitions in Southeast Asia, former United States secretary of state Hillary Clinton spoke about real threats faced by an area she called “the West Philippine Sea.”

The West Philippine Sea is a fact of nationhood, its existence amplified by the 2016 arbitral ruling that essentially said areas officially demarcated by the Philippine government under AO 29 and RA 12064 are, indeed, Philippine territory.

What accounts for Marcoleta’s refusal to recognize a basic fact of law, international ruling and cartography, the lay of the land in a nation of which he is a citizen and senator? That’s between Marcoleta and China. But to obviously take the side of China’s fictional nine-dash line over our historic and United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea-validated West Philippine Sea is beyond the pale. In nations and polities protective of their territories, a stand like Marcoleta’s will be grounds for a form of censure. In China, Marcoleta’s stand may fall under the category of treason and may end up like Lin Biao.

Some dear and basic lessons in geography and territory raise additional and troubling questions on why Marcoleta is seemingly on China’s side on the West Philippine Sea issue. With all the land, seas, and vast dominion in its possession, China’s territorial aggression looks like overkill.

China’s map occupies 9.6 million square kilometers — approximately the size of Europe. In terms of land area, it is the third largest in the world, after Russia and Canada, and much of Canada is uninhabitable tundra. The Philippines is a land-short country the size of the US state of Arizona. China, according to basic geographical data, shares boundaries with 14 other countries, and territorial disputes often arise, especially with India, due to boundary issues.

It cannot be that Marcoleta is cutting China some slack because it needs more territory, and the Philippines should play the role of a generous neighbor.

Speaking of basic generosity, has China been a generous and economically supportive neighbor, an economic superpower with zero predatory practices in economic dealings with the Philippines?

No. On the contrary — and this can be validated by the loan terms during the term of former president Rodrigo Duterte — China has imposed high interest rates on loans to the Philippine government, about 2 percent or more higher than those from, say, Japan and the European Union. Former Bayan Muna party-list representative Neri Colmenares has a compilation of China’s harsh loan terms, including provisions that allow China to seize national treasures, such as Rizal Park, in case of loan defaults.

China overall has been imposing onerous terms on foreign borrowers. After a loan default, one Latin American country found out that China demanded 80 percent of its total oil output.

So while we trade heavily with China — the only countries that do not trade with it are the imaginary trading posts Donald Trump slapped with tariffs in his April 2, 2025, “Liberation Day” tariff order — we should not forget one thing: trade is one thing, territorial aggression is another. Areas like Bajo de Masinloc — Masinloc is a town in Zambales — have been ours since time immemorial. And for Marcoleta’s information, China’s nine-dash line is a late 20th-century concoction.

Facts and cartography and history and empiricism all say there is a West Philippine Sea. Marcoleta’s West Philippine Sea distractions, at the very least, are on the wrong side of history.

Impeachment & the Supremes

Sa madaling salita, pinakialaman at ginulo ng Korte Suprema ang proseso ng pag-i-impeach sa presidente, bise-presidente, supreme court justices, atbp. gayong malinaw na sinasabi ng 1987 Constitution na ang proseso ng impeachment ay saklaw ng Awtoridad ng Legislative branch, hindi ng Judicial branch.

FR. RANHILIO CALLANGAN AQUINO: It cannot be the case that the Supreme Court has the final word. Were this so, we would equivocate on “democracy.” The rule of law is not guaranteed by the Supreme Court alone but by all branches, offices and agencies of government. … [O]ur constitution does not quite clearly entrust the well-being of the nation and the Republic to unelected modern avatars of the Platonic Guardians! Besides, there is something paradoxical to the claim that the elected representatives of the people cannot be trusted to uphold the Constitution in the same way that unelected magistrates do. https://www.manilatimes.net/

Bakit nga ba tayo papayag na ang masusunod tungkol sa impeachment ay mga mahistrado na ni hindi natin ibinoto at hindi natin kilala, na panay impeachable rin? Are these more stringent rules to protect themselves, too, rather than the checks and balances essential to democracy?

Interesante na wala pa akong naririnig na calls or moves to impeach the Supremes even if many legal thinkers, including a 1986 Constitutional Commissioner, are aghast at the ruling. Dahil kaya it would mean impeaching all 13 justices of the “unanimous vote” leaving only two? Puwede namang the Chief Justice and ponente Leonen lang, why not, and everybody else on probation, or something like that, haha, we wish.

Naalala ko tuloy the times the House of Reps tried to impeach a chief justice. Back in Arroyo times, first Erap — over Edsa Dos — and then GiboTeodoro and Wimpy Fuentebella — over judiciary development funds — tried to have CJ Hilario Davide impeached, but no dice. In Duterte times, an impeachment complaint vs. CJ Lourdes Sereno— over failure to file SALN atbp. — was overtaken by a quo warranto petition declaring her unqualified for the office from the start, and she had to go. In PNoy times, there was CJ Renato Corona‘s case that went all the way to trial and saw him impeached over SALN secrets.

This one, in BBM’s time, that finds the Supremes brazenly tampering with the Constitution, is certainly more serious a transgression involving grave abuse of discretion and deserves to be disputed  by the Legislature and settled once and for all.

FR. RANHILIO: Senate President Tito Sotto expressed his dismay over the resolution of the Supreme Court — particularly what it meant for the power of the Senate in regard to impeachment proceedings. Quite expectedly, he has been slurred for pitting his educational background against Their Honors, the learned members of the Supreme Court. But that misses the point. Sotto was raising a matter of profound constitutional moment. He was asking whether, in the exercise of powers clearly granted Congress by the Constitution itself, the Supreme Court’s criteria, standards and positions could interdict the chambers of Congress. That is a question about the workings of our democracy — and it is neither trivial nor impertinent.

Pero hindi ako bilib sa panukalang charter change para daw linawin ang pagkakasaad ng eksklusibong saklaw ng Lehislatura sa impeachment process. Masalimuot na undertaking ang cha-cha. Constituent assembly ba o constitutional convention? Kung con-ass, pagtatalunan pa uli kung joint o separate voting. Kung con-con, katakut-takot na gastos at napakahabang proseso ng pagtatalo at pagdedebate ng mga isyung pangekonomiya at pampulitika. Meanwhile, what? Sunud-sunuran muna sa dictates ng Supremes, now that mayroon nang endorsed impeachment complaints vs. both PBBM and VP Sara sa House of Reps?

But what’s to prevent the counsels of PBBM and VP Sara from going to the Supremes and contesting, again, the constitutionality of the processes, or the sufficiencies in form and substance? Which would take the Supremes forever to decide, as usual. Walang katapusan, ika nga.

Sabi ni Rey Talimio Jr. sa comment thread ni Manolo Quezon sa Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/manolo.quezon/

When the Supreme Court is alleged to have committed grave abuse of discretion, the remedy is not defiance, not political pressure, and not ignoring the ruling. The remedies are institutional: a motion for reconsideration, future doctrinal correction by the Court itself, constitutional amendment, or in the most extreme case, impeachment of the Justices through the process defined by the Constitution. That is the design of checks and balances. Courts are not infallible.

Good to know that impeachment of the Justices is indeed an option in this most extreme case. #Impeach the Supremes