Category: rodrigo duterte

ousting duterte: ain’t gonna happen

nade-deja-vu ako with all the coup and impeachment talk.  it’s like in gloria arroyo’s time when we were forever attempting another EDSA to oust her, especially after the hello-garci i-am-sorry scandal.  but we never quite managed one, did we.  at the time, i figured that it was because there was no one to replace her with — vp noli de castro the media man simply didn’t measure up — unlike in edsa dos, when vp arroyo the economist was mostly acceptable and the Left was simply outmaneuvered (the militants were calling for a council of state).

this time we have a vp who basks in the support of a yellow camp that is rightly offended by duterte’s kill-kill-kill rhetoric in the war on drugs but who seems to be distancing herself more and more from a president who rightly and fearlessly calls out america on historical atrocities committed against filipinos in the course of colonizing our islands.  and this time we have a former justice sec, now senator, trying to distract us from serious allegations that she was the recipient of millions of bucks from the bilibid drug trade for her senatorial campaign and who’s making a lot of noise about “extrajudicial killings” that’s being echoed by pro-american international media, academe, and, even, an international court prosecutor.  and this time we have the many amboys and amgirls among us who simply can’t imagine life without american troops and aid, as though that didn’t always come with all sorts of strings attached, to put it mildly.

but is all that enough to oust a duterte?  i imagine that de lima is hoping praying for an edsa action that would be backed by the yellow camp and cardinal tagle’s church and rogue military forces loyal to america.  but do they have the numbers that the duterte camp has?  no, they don’t.  their best hakot efforts would be as nothing compared to the throngs that the duterte camp is certainly capable of mobilizing throughout the country.  of course they could also shoot for a “crony”-business boycott a la pre-EDSA 86, but the duterte camp could just as easily mount a counter-boycott of the vp’s business allies, and it’s easy to imagine kung sinong pupulutin sa kangkungan.

as for an impeachment ops a la pre-edsa dos, here’s ninez cacho-olivares:

The political reality today is that the masses of Filipinos are behind Duterte and the majority in the House today are not going to try and impeach him and if they try to replicate that which the House and the Senate did in 2000 against Estrada, they are likely to fail and will face political death. Duterte, despite his being a fatalist, won’t give up that easily. Blood will flow, that is for certain.

“blood will flow” is cringe-worthy, of course.  the original EDSA template was all about no-blood no-guns no-violence.  even the president himself might be called upon for “creative imagination.”

“state of lawlessness”

late friday night when the news of the davao explosion broke — 10 dead, 60 wounded was the first count — and as we waited for more facts, i was of course thinking abu sayyaf:  who else would dare hit out at the president’s beloved davao, especially since he had recently ordered the armed forces to destroy the terrorist group down to the last man.  i imagined that duterte must be livid with anger, all his strongman threats for nought.

by the time i woke up saturday the president had declared a state of lawlessness across the length and breadth of the archipelago, which only means daw that he is calling out the military to help police suppress the violence and terrorism.  but this raises so many questions.  is the threat of terrorism — whether from the abu sayyaf or, as the bandit group alleged later, from its ally daulat ul islamiya — nationwide?

if yes, why are we not being told unequivocally about these threats and why are we not being properly advised?  to avoid sowing panic?  but we have seen enough of ISIS terrorism in europe, and threats in america, via cable tv — people are properly warned and advised to be vigilant, and it is for the people to decide whether to stay home and avoid crowds, or to refuse to be frightened or cowed.

listening closely to the president and his men, it’s clear that that they choose not to dignify the claim by the abu sayyaf or to acknowledge its ally, daulal ul islamiya, as though that would be to glorify them, or dahil ba ayaw rin nilang i-acknowledge na naisahan sila?  they had been warned pala, as vice mayor paolo duterte admitted, but we don’t know by whom, or what the extent of the threat is, as he continues to keep it all secret.  i suppose they didn’t take it seriously — macho bravado?  these terrorists, isis-linked or not, wouldn’t dare?

because otherwise that davao night market would could should have been better secured, with more police and plainclothes peeps hanging around, keeping an eye on things, and the populace would have been vigilant rather than relaxed, as in, pamasahe-pamasahe.

and then i saw this, thanks to raissa robles.  a facebook status by one of the president’s men, peter tiu lavina, saturday afternoon.

Early this morning I wrote that three groups were likely behind the bombing in Davao City last night that left 14 dead and 67 injuredt: 1) drug lords, 2) terrorist ASG, and 3) political opposition. I stand corrected. There is a fourth group. One that is a collusion of these three suspects. An alliance of all anti-Duterte forces. Drug lords providing the funds, Abu Sayyaf providing the muscle, and the political opposition providing the brains and hecklers. Not farfetched, don’t you think even if the ASG has claimed the wrongdoing? Let this 0.2% do their evil worst. The rigtheous many will always be victorious.#SulongDabaw #SulongPilipinas!

it’s quite a conspiracy theory — clearly a barefaced attempt to connect the davao blast to EJKs allegedly perpetrated by drug lords — that so far has no basis in fact, or we’re simply not being told the facts?  maybe it’s pure speculation, pang-distract, but we’re expected to swallow it all, hook line and sinker?  by the way, guys, you left out the CIA.  but never mind, your new ally, the CPP, has not.  read Reds blame US for Davao blast.

i agree with rene saguisag (just heard him on tv) that we do not have a state of lawlessness nationwide, chaos and anarchy do not reign.  well, except perhaps in the wishful minds and hearts of the duterte admin.  and i agree with teddy locsin jr. that the abu sayyaf are not terrorists of the same blend as al qaeda, hamas, IRA, or ETA.  nor do they seem to be of the diehard islamic terrorist kind.

They do not have a serious political aim. They are bandits whose aim is the extortion of anything within reach. And that reach goes only as far as the weakness of national government is deep.

But there is no hatred—like Bin Laden’s for America’s desecration of Islam’s holy lands by American physical presence there.

Not yet.

So the ASG can be talked to.

But that requires keeping a tight rein on our rhetoric. (That is, shutting the f*** up.)

When a leader betrays his people

Rex D. Lores

… What is deeply disturbing about President Duterte’s decision is the clear disconnect between his rhetoric and reality. On one hand, he is pursuing a devastating campaign against criminality and corruption; on the other, he is coddling the memory of a tyrant whose crimes and corruption stagger our imagination.

On one hand, he is attacking oligarchs who accumulated wealth over decades; on the other, he is praising a discredited leader who became the country’s greatest oligarch overnight by illegally seizing the assets of the elite.

Marcos’ rise to power started with a lie, and he prevailed for so long through the legislative and executive branches of government largely on his capacity to manipulate or conceal the truth. It started with his claims of heroic exploits as a soldier in World War II, claims found fraudulent and without a scintilla of evidence in US Army archives.

Employing these improbable claims, he captured the central seat of power. Thus, the disingenuous argument goes, Marcos is qualified to rest with our heroes. The trouble with this argument is that, bereft of moral reasoning, it is blind to the infinite harm Marcos inflicted on the social fabric.

It smirks at the historical truth: Marcos’ wanton violation of the Constitution, the brutality of his regime, the astronomical external debt he incurred, the collapse of our economy, and the stunning wealth he stole to become the world’s second most corrupt leader of all time.

As flagrant and unconscionable as these atrocities may be, they were not the worst. The most damning was that Marcos derailed the hopes and aspirations of at least three generations of Filipinos, deepening our despair and our desperation.

Death cannot be a cleansing sacrament to alter Marcos’ sordid and bloody legacy. The impunity of Marcos’ long despotic rule will burden our sense of national dignity for generations to come. And how we reckon with this design to rehabilitate Marcos as a national hero has enormous implications on our values as a people, on the nature of our future, and on the efficacy of our political culture.

To bury Marcos in the heroes’ cemetery mocks the valor, dignity, and sacrifice of martyred Filipinos. But even more, it mocks our national esteem and our shared civic values as a democratic society.

reality check

asked my cleaning lady (who comes once a week), kumusta na sa kanila somewhere in fairview where she used to say nakakatakot abutin nang gabi sa daan, o sa pag-alis niya sa umaga at madilim pa: “hindi na po nakakatakot, nawala na po ang mga adik at mga tambay.”  the same goes, i hear, in mendiola’s university belt, where students feel safer, no longer harassed by snatchers and tambays, kahit gabi na.