Last of 2 parts

QUITE recently, President BBM was mulling over the possibility of declaring POGO illegal. Although quite tentative, it's an observation of alarming developments in the country.

To refresh our memory, POGO (Philippine offshore gaming operations) was an offshoot of former President Duterte's rapprochement with China. POGO immigration to the country accelerated perhaps as a dividend of the bromance with Xi Jinping. With this new regimen of refocusing toward China from our traditional relationship with America, Chinese visitors are expected to increase presence here. Our government, following Duterte's lead hopes to attract more investments and more importantly compete with Macao and Singapore as a gambling hub for moneyed Chinese visitors and gamblers.

But to put this in proper perspective, and to be fair to the Deegong, China has long exported gambling to the country since perhaps the time China has been trading with local natives, even before the Spanish colonization. It has been recorded that when Magellan came to the islands, bets were already placed by natives on cockfights. In fact, the first recorded cockfight in China was in 517 BC and it's being transported to the islands is not a remote possibility.

Gambling enthusiasts and their defenders within government have made a case of sanctioning what has been pervasive in the country for centuries since the time before we even became a nation. The numbers game, jueteng, and its derivatives have penetrated deep into the fiber and psyche of the Filipino that they can't simply be stopped. The best that government can do is to liberate them from the shady peripheral activities and the twilight zone of legitimacy, skirting our laws and shine the light of public scrutiny and enforce a certain type of discipline; allow, tolerate but regulate.

Pagcor's birth

Thus, Marcos père created the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. (Pagcor) "...cloaking it with the authority and power to authorize, license and regulate games of chance, games of cards, and games of numbers." More importantly, Pagcor was to "serve as an additional source of revenue to fund various socio-civic projects such as flood control programs, beautification, sewage projects, and other public services." Further, it aims to "minimize, if not totally eradicate, the evils, malpractices and corruptions that normally are found prevalent in the conduct and operation of gambling clubs and casinos without direct government involvement." (PD 1067-A and RA 7922)

So far, so good!

POGO

But this is not just about gambling in general. It is about POGO in particular, that has proliferated in the country consonant to the Deegong's newfound relations with China in this ongoing bromance. This online platform caters mainly to the mainland Chinese — satisfying their compulsive craving for gambling. This type of online operation is illegal and prohibited in China under threat of capital punishment, something that the Chinese understand and respect. But not here in the Philippines, their base, from which they serve online Chinese gamblers offshore.

Upside — money coming in

Duterte's allowing expansion in Manila of POGO at the start of his regime injected a massive dose of gambling money and its downstream effects on property rentals, restaurants, transportation and induced a mini real estate boom with the banks getting into the act with funds lent liberally to builders, unmindful of a possible bubble.

What egged on Duterte was the money POGO gambling was bringing in for the country. In the ensuing Duterte years, POGO brought in a staggering P551 billion yearly revenues to the economy. But we had some voices on the sidelines, not of dissent but a warning. Former Finance secretary Sonny Dominguez had been declaring that POGOs and their workers were evading taxes. Budget chief Diokno himself warned that there was incalculable social cost that POGO imposed on Philippine society. But the Deegong dismissed these remarks from his Cabinet, in effect encouraging the industry. As in the Pharmally corruption episodes, the president turned a blind eye and stubbornly defended his Chinese friends.

The pandemic

Then the s**t hit the fan! Covid-19 came and wrought havoc on all these. POGO revenues plummeted to P3.9 billion in 2021, from P7.2 billion in 2020 and continued to slide further toward the end of the Deegong's term. But what was appalling were the practices of POGOs that now came to light. These were the attendant social cost that had reached staggering proportions. Witness a spate of headlines in the mass and social media:

"Cases of kidnapping targeting workers of POGO firms have increased by 25 percent on Sept. 9, 2022, from 36 kidnapping cases in 2021, according to the Philippine National Police Anti-Kidnapping Group (PNP-AKG)." (Philippine Star)

"PNP's Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) arrested five POGO workers, four of them Chinese, following an operation to rescue a Chinese woman who was abducted on September 14 in Pasay City. The five are now in custody facing charges of kidnapping and serious illegal detention, robbery extortion and possession of firearms and live ammunition without a license."

"The suspects were identified as members of the Zi criminal group, a syndicate linked to kidnappings and illegal detention of POGO employees in the southern part of Metro Manila, according to a February report of the PNP Directorate for Intelligence. The syndicate is one of "more than five groups" involved in Pogo kidnappings, based on police intelligence.

Kidnapping, extortion and prostitution reared their ugly heads. Chinese syndicates began to openly dominate the crime scene — abetted by the dark gambling money greasing the wheels of the police, bureaucracy and justice system.

Still, we have voices from the bureaucracy and the general populace reluctantly arguing that "anyway, these are just crimes done by Chinese against the Chinese!" How shortsighted and stupid these arguments are. All crimes impact society. And we are now deep in it!

Police protecting POGO bosses

Now it has just been revealed in a Senate hearing that 300 policemen were seconded to POGO bosses as bodyguards, including their "extended families." What is unbelievable is that this was tolerated both by the PNP chief himself, Gen. Rodolfo Azurin Jr., and his direct boss, Interior Secretary Benhur Abalos. This bodyguard/protection racket must have been lucrative to our police security system as Abalos directed his miniosn to stop the practice only after the Senate questioned its legality. These two public servants never did understand that this breeds corruption and are ignorant of their priorities. These incompetents give BBM's first 100 days a black eye.

BBM needs his own legacy

BBM, with his ambivalent position on the sordid legacy of the past president — Pharmally and now POGO — has laid himself vulnerable to being regarded as simply a continuation of the Deegong. The danger of his being branded as a weak heir may gain traction — and the tragedy is — heir not to FM but to Duterte!

Maybe the wrong heir was installed; perhaps an heiress would have been preferable, who declared in no uncertain terms that:

"If we cannot regulate [POGOs], then we better stop them. There are now abductions and killings," Sen. Imee Marcos said. "What's happening is already sordid and gruesome. They've been here for years, and obviously, we could not regulate them."

First of 2 parts

FORMER president Duterte left office with accomplishments his constituency can be proud of. The much-touted Build, Build, Build (Triple Build!) program was one of those successes that ushered in his "Golden Age of Infrastructure" — an unprecedented increased spending in infrastructure surpassing even the two decades of Ferdinand and Imelda's building spree. Partly to decongest the capital region, it was meant to disperse and encourage economic growth and reduce poverty all over. On top of this, the Deegong initiated liberal economic improvements, particularly a comprehensive tax reform program. The Deegong's own data boast providing almost 10 million jobs in the six years that he was in power.

At the outset, the Deegong introduced a predictable foreign policy scheme reflecting his personal disdain for America, veering away from the traditional lapdog relations, and opened up an entente cordiale with China. Two years into his administration, he declared that China plays a crucial role in his Triple Build! program, intimating that, "I just simply love Xi Jinping. He understands my problem, and he's willing to help. And I would like to say thank you, China." His economic managers and budget officials estimated the cost of this program at around P9 trillion ($180 billion) over six years.

The target was set at 75 flagship projects, which included airports, railways, roads and bridges, seaports, etc. Among those that Duterte wanted funded was the Subic-Clark railway project costing $940 million, the biggest government-to-government project to be bankrolled by China. But the one Duterte is particularly proud of is the Davao City-Island Garden City of Samal $400 million bridge — that has been promised since time immemorial by countless Philippine administrations after World War 2. Whether Xi Jinping has stuck to his promise or not is no longer the Deegong's concern. Duterte is now enjoying his retirement in Davao and may still cross the Davao-Samal bridge soon, surely a feather in his cap. His legacy is largely intact awaiting history's judgment.

Flawed legacy

His rapprochement and bromance with China certainly yielded these nice dividends but along with these were those that may blemish his cherished legacy: POGO and Pharmally. First, the latter, considered as one of the biggest corruption occurrences that personally stained Duterte's reputation as a president who will not tolerate corruption — even "a whiff of it" — has remained unresolved. After several lengthy Senate blue ribbon committee (BRC) hearings by erstwhile chairman, the then-senator Dick Gordon, his bete noire, 11 other senators, mostly the President's allies, refused to sign the findings, relegating the same to BRC limbo. But up in the air was Malacañang's role in this sordid affair. Emerging from the hearing was Malacañang seen to be complicit, not simply naïve. This could be gleaned from the vehemence of the Deegong's attack on Gordon and his dogged defense of his Chinese friends. This brings to mind how enamored our Duterte is with China. God forbid, if China holds the Deegong by the balls and by inference, we Filipinos.

The Chinese connection

To review, what came out in the hearing was a series of shocking testimonies proving that the undercapitalized (P625,000 paid-up) Pharmally Pharmaceutical Corp. bagged P8.68 billion in government contracts with zero track record. The paper trail led to financial transactions that indicated the Chinese perpetrators along with their local business partners and bureaucrats may also have been conduits of drug money laundered through these transactions. These executives, owners and facilitators, starting with Duterte's "economic adviser" Michael Yang, a shadowy mainland Chinese figure known by many labels — consultant, facilitator, bagman, pagador or locally, as bugaw (pimp), depending on the package offered and bought — have gotten away scot-free.

What is unconscionable is that the BRC hearing has established that with the acquiescence of then Health secretary Francisco Duque 3rd, undersecretary Lloyd Christopher Lao facilitated the allegedly irregular release of P42 billion (and more) for personal protective equipment (PPE) procurement, including the anomalous fund transfers from the Department of Health (DoH) to the Procurement Service of the Department of Budget and Management (PS-DBM).

At the center of this maelstrom is Lao, a well-placed lawyer within Duterte's circle, a presidential appointee to various sensitive government positions, landing as DoH undersecretary and finally ensconced at the PS-DBM, is reportedly a stooge of Sen. Christopher Lawrence "Bong" Go, who has denied it. At the hearings, he admitted that no due diligence was conducted on Pharmally, negligently awarding billions to a practically "unknown company" and requiring only a casual background check on the incorporators and executives who turned out to be fugitives from justice (from China and Taiwan) — is simply irresponsible and may even be criminal.

Marcos crafting own legacy

Now the ball is in BBM's court. In his SONA last July 25, he proposed 19 bills for Congress to consider giving direction to his cabinet on where to bring his government. But on a very crucial point, he never did mention any anti-corruption initiatives. In fact, subsequent to his SONA, he signed Executive Order 1 abolishing among others the Presidential Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC). This was altogether not unwelcome as the PACC was a bureaucracy that fell short of its mandate to enable President Duterte to investigate corruption in the bureaucracy.

Still, at the start of BBM's watch, his profound silence on how he was going to confront corruption and its attendant ills to the bureaucracy and to the country has a chilling effect — considering that graft and corruption, rent-seeking and regulatory capture were once major issues of his father's martial law regime.

We can only hope that his reticence is not a signal that the shady acts of his predecessor's people are being condoned. He doesn't owe the Deegong any favors; he didn't even support his candidacy short of allowing his daughter to run under him. This time, he can prevail upon his Department of Justice to revisit the Senate's BRC findings and by its own volition investigate the Pharmally corruption. It is imperative that the biggest anomaly in the past administration — making it more egregious as it happened during the pandemic — be given closure. BBM and the Filipino people cannot countenance these Chinese miscreants and their allies in the bureaucracy and in the highest echelons of government. They need to be brought to justice and this perversion resolved.

This is not racial, going after the Chinese businessmen. Many of these Chinese personalities have their own criminal cases in the mainland and in Taiwan. BBM will be doing them a favor. This is not also political, as names of past Cabinet members and even a member of the Senate have been dragged into the muck. And more importantly, BBM will telegraph to the citizenry, in his second 100 days, that he possesses the political will to do what is right for the country.

The Pharmally anomaly is a cut-and-dried case. The dozen or so Senate BRC hearings contain evidence that could burn the scoundrels and even perhaps clear the past president — or burn him.

Next week, Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2022: POGO

SIX months ago, I wrote a piece on Ukraine predicting a quick defeat, after Russia launched its attack on February 24: "In the coming days Putin will unveil his endgame. Thousands will be dead and those that fled the cities are the lucky ones. Kyiv, Kharkiv, Lviv and Odesa will be reduced to rubble, proverbially comparable to when Tokyo and Japanese cities were firebombed, systematically killing civilians toward the end of World War 2."

I was terribly wrong! It's now been 223 days — and counting, and the conflict drags on with no end in sight. But I was spot on when I anticipated that:

"America will not shed blood for Ukraine. No 'boots on the ground'! With its NATO allies, the US will simply arm Ukraine, encourage it to resist, and Russian and Ukraine boys will die. Victims all for a surrogate war for democracy. Not a drop of American blood spilled. But this act by America and NATO using Eastern Europeans to butcher each other is pushing Putin into a corner. Putin will not allow Russian boys to die in hordes in a protracted war with Ukraine. Putin has alternatives at his disposal, one of which is almost unthinkable. But as a superb poker player, Putin has gone 'all-in' and put his nuclear options into play. But nuclear war will not happen. Putin understands only too well the theory of mutual assured destruction (MAD)."

In any case, this war has left in its wake the lament of those that are affected the most — Ukrainian and Russian mothers!

Sanctions — who loses

Aside from the armaments of conventional war boosting Ukraine's arsenal, the West has imposed economic sanctions as a calibrated alternative response to military intervention. The strategy of economic sanctions has always been the penultimate weapon of America and her allies. In conflicts past, it partly worked in the wake of the 1990 Kuwait invasion by Saddam Hussein. But the incalculable damage to the Iraqi civilian population was disproportionate to the harm it did to Saddam and his government.

Sanctions were also applied by the West when Putin annexed Ukraine's Crimea in 2014. Both Russia and the Western countries suffered — though the Russian populace suffered more. These sanctions did not prevent Russian adventurism nor the subsequent invasion of Ukraine. After the 2014 Crimea occupation, Russia must have anticipated Western allied sanctions as a consequence of its current invasion — planning long in advance and preparing for it. This time, not only have the actual protagonists suffered but the effects of the sanctions have spilled over, a global collateral damage — oil, gasoline, food, and agricultural products have become scarce, causing severe inflation. Experts are predicting a global economic recession. And for what?

"The idea is that sanctions cause economic damage and coerce the target to change its objectionable course of action. Although economic sanctions are widely used, their effectiveness is often debated. Recent research on sanctions has generally concluded that economic sanctions seldom change behavior, especially those aimed at disrupting military interventions. If national security is viewed as being at stake, sanctions simply aren't sufficiently costly." (Sylvanus Afersorgbor, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada)

Who wins

Now US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in his visit to Ukraine just announced the latest tranche of a $2.2 billion foreign military financing package for Ukraine and 18 other countries deemed at risk of future Russian aggression. The latest package includes $675 million to be shipped shortly in arms, supplies and ammunition. Another $1 to $2 billion comes in the form of US grants and loans that will enable countries to purchase weapons and defense equipment made in the US. Now things are becoming clearer as to the motivations and direction the war is going. If conspiracy theorists were to be believed — and the evidence to this is overwhelming, the military-industrial complex are the primary beneficiaries. And we can all draw our own conclusions.

MICC

American global military might is a given. Since the Second World War America assumed a world-dominant position never before seen in the annals of the rise and fall of empires. The symbiosis between its economic and military components is directed toward serving each other's vested interest — one twin obtaining war weapons, the other paid to supply them. The armed forces of the US and the defense contractors, all orchestrated by the Pentagon, need the enabling participation of a complicit US Congress forming a three-sided triangle — now aptly called the military-industrial-congressional complex (MICC).

US military aid to Ukraine since the invasion is now estimated at $15.2 billion. Weapons sent to Ukraine are drones, armored vehicles, artillery pieces, and perhaps fighter planes soon. So far, Javelin, Brimstone and other anti-tank weapons, as well as 16,000 artillery rounds have been delivered. Another set of weapons pledged or already sent include "...72 155mm howitzers, 72 vehicles to tow them, 144,000 rounds of ammunition, and more than 120 Phoenix Ghost tactical drones recently developed by the US Air Force specifically to address Ukraine's needs."

These Javelin missiles jointly made by America's Lockheed Martin Corp. and Raytheon Technologies and the British/Swedish-made NLAW missiles are particularly effective as accordingly, they have destroyed 5,000 to 6,800 Russian tanks. And anti-aircraft Stinger missile systems manufactured by Raytheon have practically cleared the skies over Ukraine of Russian Mig jet fighters.

America even sent the deadly High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (Himars), a technologically advanced weapons system that took out more than 100 "high value" Russian targets. These could turn the tide for Ukraine.

And Ukraine is asking for more and more weapons as the US is more than willing to deliver. Supplies and weapons components are drastically affected by supply-chain concerns complicating any ramp-up of production. The US Congress obliged by legislating an additional $52 billion for US chipmakers to expand operations. The business of war for America's MICC has never been so good.

US presidents' wars

American administrations, from many of us looking in, whatever their political shade — the conservative GOP or the liberal Democrats — share a commonality, an ethos harking back to their history and character — "the individualistic gunslinger cowboy of the western frontier." This archetype has been collectively transliterated to the world stage allowing America to assume its role as the world's primus inter pares, resulting in America waging a total of 102 wars and bush fires and low-intensity conflicts during the 20th and 21st centuries, inclusive of the major ones since 1900: World War 1, World War 2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the two Gulf wars. They have even pompously designated their wars with their presidents. Johnson's Vietnam war, the Bush pere Gulf War, Dubya Bush's Iraq war segueing into America's longest — the Afghanistan war which was also attributed to Obama winding the war down.

Thus, it could be argued that the Ukraine war, initiated by Putin, may be serendipitous to American hegemony and the benefit of the MICC. In one sense, this could be construed as Biden's war, coated of course with the traditional mantra of the preservation of Freedom, Liberty and Democracy.

So, is Ukraine winning? Who cares? Business is good!

JUST when the Centrist Democrats, particularly the Centrist Democratic Party (CDP), were losing hope at the end of former president Rodrigo Duterte's term when he dropped the ball on constitutional revisions, we had our expectations revived with the pronouncements of Sen. Robin Padilla who topped the Senate race on a platform championing "federalism and parliamentary government" and his mantra of welcoming foreign direct investments (FDI). As always, Filipinos love populist candidates adopting trendy but complicated issues — stabbing in the eye the snobbish 20 to 30 percent of the citizenry who dismisses the good senator for being a "mere actor" incapable of understanding or following through on issues that require heated debates on the Senate floor in the language of the cognoscenti — English — not in the vernacular which most senators are incapable of speaking or are plain incompetent in.

It was a sad memory for our citizenry that one of the major cogs preventing discussions and debates on constitutional reform was the erstwhile Senate chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Amendments — then senator Francis Pangilinan, who since 2019 sat on various constitutional amendments. He had to kowtow to the Liberal Party line upon the ascendancy of the then lamented President Benigno Aquino 3rd who declared that nary a "comma or a word" be changed in his mother's 1987 Constitution.

CD revival

Thus, the drowning Centrists grasped at straws on an actor's mouthing the correct idioms of the reformist who may not be articulate in English but possessing the language of the common man — the eventual beneficiary of constitutional reforms. Senator Robin Hood's (he insists on this nom de guerre) knowledge of parliamentary-federal government may not be book-learned or classroom-induced but simply experiential and anecdotal. Accordingly, his stay with his family in Australia gave him a glimpse of how federalism and parliamentary government work for the masses. His knowledge of the intricacies of the system may have been supplemented by the various Centrist groups and advocates of Fed-Parl, particularly the CDP, the CoRRECT Movement and the Centrist Democracy Political Institute (CDPI).

But in this 19th Congress, we have a more experienced and knowledgeable advocate in the lower house and possibly the most hardworking congressman, the president of CDP himself, Rufus Rodriguez, who has been advocating for a shift to federal-parliamentary government from the onerous unitary-presidential system that has stymied our socioeconomic-political development for decades and embedded systemic anomalies in the 1987 Constitution.

This tandem, a tyro in the Senate and an old hand and expert in Congress, could prove formidable, orchestrating the right symphony on constitutional revisions long silenced by the conservatives, the dynasts and the traditional politicians in both houses.

It is a great help too that the current speaker of the House, Leyte Rep. Martin Romualdez, is an advocate himself and an acolyte of the former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (GMA) who initiated the 2005 ConCom.

The same advocacy can be attributed to the current president of the Senate — Migs Zubiri — a Mindanawnon and passionate federalist though his views on parliamentary government have yet to be fleshed out.

Both chambers may be ready to instigate fundamental changes with the support of the Centrist (CD) groups and reform-minded advocates among the citizenry. But one crucial ingredient is still lacking: the full support of the executive branch — President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. himself.

Contrasting SONAs

The new president did deliver a good SONA — comparatively better than his predecessor — the contrast vividly accentuated by the absence of cuss words, PI, misogynists remarks, referrals to penises and vaginas, and passionate emphasis on a jaded recurring theme "...if you destroy my country, I will kill you ... I will really bring you down because I love my country."

After the failure of the Duterte administration on constitutional reforms, his parting words, wryly directed to the next administration hardly resonated, coming out instead as a phony sad afterthought.

"Sa totoo lang, kailangan natin baguhin na ang Constitution. Eh nasa sa inyo 'yan (To be honest, we need to amend the Constitution. But it's up to you)," Duterte said in a speech in Batangas.

He said proposing amendments to the Constitution could either be done through constituent assembly (Con-Ass) or constitutional convention (Con-Con).

"The Constitution is not really a perfect one. I would not say it is the worst Constitution, but we have copied that from America word for word halos (almost) when we established the Republic in 1947 naging Republic of the Philippines tayo (we became the Republic of the Philippines)," he added. (PNA, April 4, 2022.)

But last July 25, what the Centrist constitutional reformers awaited with bated breath never came out from BBM's first SONA. No mention of constitutional revisions or mimicking his father's parliamentary government initiatives contained in Ferdinand Marcos Sr.'s 1973 Constitution. The rest of the SONA was a roadmap to what he intends to do in the next six years. Very wide-ranging relevant, appropriate and in some cases inspiring. But no Charter Change recommendations!

Failed Cha-cha initiatives

It may be recalled that a long history of failure to revise the 1987 Constitution, from FVR's Porma to Erap's Concord, to GMA's and Duterte's 2005 and 2017 ConCom may be attributed to the psyche of those that promulgated the original Cory Constitution. It was more a reflection of the rejection of the martial law regime that the 1987 Constitution was fashioned after and carried over into several administrations. The dictatorship booted out by Cory threw out anything connected to it — the baby along with the bathwater, the good along with the bad. Thus, a mongrelized version of a basic law that retained the unitary system.

A better version of the parliamentary government provisions espoused by the dictator in his 1973 Constitution was rejected by the 1987 Basic Law — losing out to a presidential government by a single vote on the constitutional convention floor. But some anomalous provisions were retained either for lack of material time or simply by neglect and stupidity. The party list which is best suited for a parliamentary system was inadvertently left untouched — thus producing the current party-list anomaly that even the former president Deegong called a "useless and stupid concept," calling for its abolition. What was then intended for the marginalized sectors are being used by rich influential politicians, political dynasties, the generals involved in the narcotics trade, and the legal fronts of the Communist Party of the Philippines to subvert the government.

Ghosts of the past

Pirma, Concord and the two ConComs of 2005 and 2018, although pushed by their respective presidents, never had the cooperation of both houses of congress and died in the committees, never seeing serious discussion in plenary. The dissonance in both chambers of Congress drowned out the advocacies of a substantial portion of those who may have understood that central to the problems besetting Philippine society were really the systemic anomalies imbedded in our basic laws.

Both houses now have heads of the appropriate committees that can usher in serious discussions of constitutional revisions — Rufus and Robin Hood.

The question now is, will BBM follow through — with the original intent of his father embracing parliamentary government — the 1973 unicameral legislature, the Batasang Pambansa?

IN November 2019, I wrote a piece on the rise of China based on the book of our Harvard Dean Graham Allison — Destined for War (2017, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt). The book described China's reappearance on the world stage as a superpower "...after an absence of more than two hundred years. It may be recalled that ancient China, the Middle Kingdom, was dominant in Asia for thousands of years before it was eclipsed by the West that began during the Age of Discovery in the early 16th century."

Allison proposes that the impact of China's rise will cause "...discombobulation to the US and the international order." He cited Thucydides, the Greek historian who first defined the concept of history in his History of the Peloponnesian War 2,500 years ago. In his book, he suggests that "[i]t was the rise of Athens and the fear that this installed in Sparta that made war inevitable." Applying this to the current status of America confronted with the rise of China, Allison conceived the "Thucydides Trap, a dangerous dynamic that occurs when a rising power threatens to displace a major ruling power." In this case, China, the rising power, threatens to displace the ruling power, the United States. Will war ensue, as in Athens versus Sparta? Allison suggests that war is likely but not inevitable.

And this is the theme underpinning this column: to divine the direction America is embarking on, in the light of US House Speaker Pelosi's Taiwan visit — an "in your face move" on the People's Republic of China (PROC) that has always asserted that Taiwan is her province. This histrionics by the US, poking the eye of China may be an injudicious move but in the eyes of the US Democrats, a necessary though not altogether a brilliant one. But we have gone beyond Thucydides Trap and the world is no longer surprised by America's antics since they installed a buffoon of a president in the White House and now propping the sagging image of another septuagenarian president. Apparently, Pelosi's move was a play to the American voters signaling that the Democrats are shoring up its conservative streak, playing to the right wing, recapturing the American narrative from the Trumpists — who may stage a return to the White House.

Pelosi's was a calibrated move with the US probably having game-planned China's response. True enough, the full might of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) was revealed signaling its anger over this seeming provocation. But I'm afraid Beijing's response was more for show and perhaps a diversion — intended for its masses — given domestic economic dislocations precipitated by a massive real-estate bubble; averting in some ways China's impending economic collapse — if the Economist and the New York Times were to be believed. Tidbits of news have filtered out from the mainland that Chinese banks have frozen and curtailed bank accounts withdrawals — with the ordinary citizens boycotting mortgage payments; all resulting in an inevitable string of bank failures.

Third Crisis

It may be recalled that in 1996, China (PROC) caused crises when it fired missiles into the seas off Taiwan. President Clinton dispatched two aircraft carrier strike groups to Taiwan as a gesture of solidarity and support. This was the so-called third crisis after that of 1954 and 1958 where a castrated PROC had to back down against the display of American might. Experts contended that the consequences of these three crises spurred China to purchase better generations of weaponry and develop strategies for future nuclear and non-nuclear confrontations — that will diminish the effectiveness of the US 7th fleet around the straits.

This time while Pelosi's plane was en route to Taipei, the PROC-PLA launched its largest and massive military exercise response lasting over a period of a week; blasting-off missiles towards the Taiwan strait with its latest aircraft and destroyers, submarines, and its own aircraft carriers.

If anything, this was to show America and the world that after several crises precipitated by the USA and Taiwan since the '50s, China has come into its own. It has transformed itself into a world military power, herself capable of going mano-a-mano with the US. It may have achieved parity with America on military capabilities. Experts maintained that it has even surpassed the US in shipbuilding, land-based ballistic and cruise missiles, and now is the third largest nuclear power after the US and Russia. Its recent bully move in the South China Sea (WPS) fortifying island fortresses has given China unsinkable aircraft carriers.

But will China go to war for Taiwan? Or the reverse question may even be more succinct and valid. Will the US risk war with China over Taiwan? These past weeks, Pelosi's visit has given China a pretext to elevate its military activity to another level just to a point where it is not seen as challenging the might of America. On the other hand, President Xi, with all his domestic troubles relegated temporarily to the sidelines, has proven to its citizens, humiliated for decades, and to the world that China can take Taiwan anytime they want. The massive build-up and repositioning of Chinese forces facing Taiwan was more a rehearsal for China's inevitable invasion than a response to a provocation.

The coming invasion

Pelosi's visit may be for China a blessing in disguise. It has allowed PLA to flex its muscles and practice for any eventualities; prepositioning assets, fuel, munitions and materiel into forward positions in Fujian province fronting Taiwan; and may have perfected its communication structures, coordinating air, land and sea forces required for a lightning invasion — similar and even better than any German Blitzkrieg of the second world war. But more importantly, China may have found a renewed sense of confidence.

China has bided its time. It is an old society spanning thousands of years. It must be clear to them by now that a strategy to overwhelm Taiwan using the element of surprise, is doable — before America can mobilize and get a consensus going. America, since the Trump phenomenon, has a highly polarized political society. And this is the perfect backdrop for a Chinese excursion. And I doubt that America will risk a war over Taiwan. Precious young white American blood may not be spilled to preserve the way of life of a faraway Asian nation. This is not racist. This is simply the reality. America for all its braggadocio, technological advances and military might has shown with its latest humiliation in Afghanistan and powerlessness in Ukraine that it is no longer up to it — the world's self-appointed policeman and keeper of its vaunted concepts of Freedom Democracy.

A quick defeat and occupation of Taiwan — which is her province anyway — will not precipitate a wider conflict. China and America with their nuclear arsenal understand only too well the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).

And thus, Thucydides Trap may have sprung — starting decades back and accelerating with the American miscalculations over the decades; with Pelosi's visit just a footnote. China has risen and America may be on the wane, but both will not risk nuclear war. China regaining Taiwan is inevitable — war is not.

SHORTLY after the opening of the 19th Congress, Surigao del Norte Rep. Robert Ace Barbers filed House Bill 1536, an act seeking to ban political turncoatism. Flamboyantly titled the "Anti-Political Prostitute Act," this bill is a watershed on two counts: an affirmation that political party turncoatism is prevalent and a blight on our political system; and more importantly, the acceptance by a member of legislature himself that political prostitutes proliferate through the hallowed halls of Congress. But don't jump to conclusions yet. Comparing political turncoats to prostitutes may be incorrect. In Philippine politics a turncoat "shifts allegiance from one loyalty or idea to another — betraying or deserting an original cause by switching to the opposing side or party; selfish only unto oneself and family," while a prostitute grants clients direct sexual access to one's body agreeing to engage in sexual conduct for a fee. Both common practices in the Philippine, their nuances may appear clearer when seen through the reality of recent developments and through the lens of each one's respective clients or constituency.

Political turncoats — a new profession

The Philippines adopted partly our American colonial structure of government and therefore the behavioral patterns emanating from it. We elect our political leaders through political parties, the primary vehicles to gain political power by engaging in political contests, primarily elections. The members and their leadership are expected to adhere to a set of principles and strategies written in a platform unique to that party. This espousal of a vision of governance defines the ideological identity of that party — and therefore, the electorate must be permitted a patent choice — as to who must govern them based on what the candidates and their respective parties stand for. Their adherence to their beliefs could be a guarantee on how they will behave in office after we vote them in. This, we call integrity — which political turncoats are bereft of.

A case in point. Within weeks of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.'s election, 27 district representatives abandoned their political parties to join Lakas-CMD, taking their oath before Speaker Martin Romualdez of the 19th Congress and President BBM's cousin.

This is not new. Many of these officials were once members of the 15th and 16th Congress under the late president Noynoy Aquino (approximately 31 at first, then eventually 75 congressmen) who transferred to President Duterte in the 17th and 18th Congress.

In 2016, candidate Duterte ran under the PDP Laban having one senator and only three congressmen. After he won in 2016, 77 went to PDP-Laban with 47 coming from the Liberal Party and 32 governors (Julio Teehankee, research article).

These turncoats switched parties weeks after an election. In his bill, Barbers seeks to ban these balimbing with appropriate sanctions; disqualification from current office, ban from future elections or from future appointments to government offices. Accordingly, Barbers' bill will "ensure a genuine party system and promote party loyalty, discipline, and adherence to ideological principles."

Surigao del Sur Rep. Johnny Pimentel said the present political setup has become embarrassing for the country because it opened itself to so-called political butterflies who switched loyalties. The good congressman who himself was a member of the LAMMP party (1998-2001), Lakas-CMD (before 2021), Liberal Party (2012-2018) and currently a stalwart of PDP-Laban, is among those who want the 1987 Constitution revised to prevent such anomalies — and good for him too!

Prostitution an old profession

In the olden days, aside from being the oldest profession, prostitution was an honest-to-goodness, even exalted occupation. John Philip Jenkins, a history professor at Baylor University in the US wrote:

"... Perceptions of prostitution are based on culturally determined values that differ between societies. In some societies, prostitutes have been viewed as members of a recognized profession; in others they have been shunned, reviled and punished with stoning, imprisonment and death... In some cultures, prostitution has been required of young girls as a rite of puberty or as a means of acquiring a dowry, and some religions have required prostitution of a certain class of priestesses ... Hebrew law did not forbid prostitution but confined the practice to foreign women."

Antecedents

Prostitutes have their unambiguous utility to society and were thus widely accepted. If one cares to do google search, the history of prostitution dates back to 2400 BCE, first recorded in Sumer where Sumerian priests ran brothels and where the kings "performed religious rituals or sacred marriage." Thus, the antecedents of prostitution are religious where brothels or temples are "houses of heaven" sacred to particular deities. The Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible, is replete with stories of prostitution practiced during the era.

In ancient Greece, both women and men engaged in prostitution and in some temples thousands of prostitutes plied their wares. In ancient Rome citizens of stature openly engaged the services of prostitutes where it was legal and where opprobrium and moral censure were unattached to the arrangements. But over time, although the practice has its religious roots, the natural proclivity for carnal pursuit went beyond religious rituals, changing drastically the nature of the procurer, purveyor and the transaction itself. As Imperial Rome grew and conquered the known world, foreign slaves were substituted for purely sexual pleasures and foreign men, women and even children were captured and recruited for prostitution. Although Roman mores did not attach any stigma to the whole process, the onslaught of another religious creed came to erode the practice.

Not until the reign in AD 306 of Constantine, the Roman emperor who converted to Christianity, did prostitution undergo a complete facelift. The Christian moral suasion began to render such practices as unchristian — and thus shameful — though the practice persisted and continues to exist to the present time with ambiguous scruples in different societies. In many European countries prostitution is legal and regulated. In the Netherlands, the De Wallen red light district of Amsterdam is famous for its international sex tourism; and the prostitutes, mostly women have organized strong unions and are considered as professionals. In Switzerland, licensed brothels cater to customers though forcing people into the profession is illegal.

Today depending on where you live, prostitution may be viewed as haram and violence against women as in the countries practicing Islam — though their treatment of women leaves much to be desired; or various shades of morality and legality as practiced in the countries of Christian faith; and even morally neutral and perfectly legal in others. Some supporters of the practice decriminalize prostitution leaning toward the "Nordic model" — a concept that started in Norway, Sweden and the northern countries which has begun to spill over to Canada, Iceland and even France.

The difference

Surely the old profession has societal uses though now buried in a murky veil of morality. But the prostitutes received money for services rendered. This is integrity!

In the Philippines, political turncoats have no such fealty to their party from whom they were elected by their clients. Only to themselves do they owe fealty. No integrity! In this sense, turncoats are not prostitutes. Yet we allow them and shun prostitution. Their behavior is in fact an insult to prostitutes.

I WATCHED the film "Maid in Malacañang" (MnM) at its premiere showing at the Gaisano Theater in Davao City last month. The last time I went to a film premiere was four or five decades ago at Garmon or Galaxy, movie houses that are now defunct. The film, "The Godfather," or was it James Bond's "Goldfinger" — I cannot remember now. It was a one-day screening affair. The movie series was much anticipated that we just had to see the premiere, buying our tickets from scalpers at prices several times over that of the takilya.

MnM was different. My wife and I were invited to the VIP section for free. The 300 seating capacity was half-occupied although seats were paid for by the local organizers — presumably, the theater owner. As in any premiere showing in Hollywood for a hyped-up movie, the local premiere was complete with the installed red carpet — where the invited local "who's who" were ushered in to walk through.

The movie

To make a movie, a script has to be written first. The visual narrative needs to follow the script weaving around the story it intends to portray. The director on the other hand has total control of the making of the film. The film is the director's medium — and does with it whatever he wants — sometimes diverging away from the script or the original intent of the narrative. Often, this creates a conflict between the scriptwriter and the director. Not in this one. Darryl Yap the scriptwriter is also its director and therefore, presumably, should have control of the flow of the narrative, the sequencing and more importantly, its veracity that must contribute overall toward a finished film.

In this case the scriptwriter-director needs to be true to his craft and research deeply the story to be depicted. But this movie is more than an art medium. As the executive producer and consultant, Sen. Imee Marcos herself declared: "It's about time we tell our story, too, about what happened in Malacañang ... about what we know ... we're just telling the story we know, from our point of view. We're not changing anything from what they say. We're not revising anything. It's totally inaccurate to say that. We're simply explaining the happenings in our final three days in [the Palace]."

"And I think the people have the right to know what was happening back then ...unfortunately, there will have to be some truths told and some lies, debunked, finally." (PDI, July 22, 2022)

With her declaration, the scriptwriter-director may have subsumed his creative control over the film, presumably surrendering to the good senator who has a bigger stake in the emotional impact of the film. The movie, I'm afraid, has now been captured by the senator herself, relegating the scriptwriter-director to a mere handyman, doing odd jobs, perhaps a notch above a film editor. But if one is paid well, the hell with creative control!

Propaganda/History

Thus, the movie has been elevated into something more than an ordinary film. It has polarized moviegoers. One person's truth is another man's prevarications. And the detractors of the movie, and there are many, have vehemently attacked the film (with many not even having seen the flick). There are accusations of historical revisionism and distortion of the historical record of the Marcos rule and dictatorship — or just simply plain lies, mostly coming from the leftist groups and the political center launching the ML@50 Movement. The stated purpose of this group's campaign is "...encouraging a wider awareness of that historical chapter through arts and culture. Thus, the organizers are planning, among other activities, festivals, exhibits and workshops about martial law"

Come on! It's just a frigging B-class movie. Produce your own!

The cast

A tale told from the point of view of the Malacañang staff (mostly maids/kasambahay), Imee — though the screenwriter-director and actors have to go through the pain of explaining what could have been great events — the last 72 hours during the EDSA People Power Revolution presaging the family's exile — from their personal point of view.

The budget for this film must really be astronomical. For one, big names have been recruited. Cesar Montano, the Philippine version of an "A lister" portrayed Apo Ferdie. But with a second-rate rambling dialogue it was almost impossible for a really good actor to be one. Statuesque Ruffa Gutierrez, a beautiful model took on the role of Imelda, who in real life was a force to reckon with — larger than life — who shared the political center stage with the Apo. Alas, their only similarities were their height and hairdo. Ruffa's acting was wooden, more fit for runway modeling. She did not do Imelda justice.

The rest of the cast, Ella Cruz as Irene, Diego Loyzaga as Bongbong, and the other minor roles had to follow an inane script with acting reflective of the Filipino genre of loud and runaway dialogues interspersed with sobbing, crying and hysterics. Unable to use the tools of good acting ... nuances, period of silences, intermittent pausing for effect; instead, in some instances, it turned into a deadly shouting match. Filipino actors have to show tears as their concept of "good acting. Ang galing sa hiyawan, sigawan at iyakan ... acting talaga."

Even the stab at comic relief by the maids deteriorated into slapstick, popular with the "masa," which garnered the greatest applause from the audience — at least at the Gaisano Theater in Davao.

But the portrayal of Bongbong in the film is unconscionable. He appeared as the bumbling younger brother donning one costume the whole 72 hours, military fatigues — and assigned one dramatic scene with the Apo, that Ambeth Ocampo described as "...a whimpering child of a man desperate for his father's attention and approval..." Even with literary license — the role was most degrading — the future president should not have been depicted this way. Fiction or not, what would Liza say of the whole film?

And the actress who hogged the film was Christine Reyes as Imee whom Ambeth Ocampo described "...as a pouting, petulant, entitled b*tch in the opening scene who degenerated into a shrill, hysterical banshee for most of the film."

I've met the senator a few times and she struck me as smart, beautiful, possessed of an electric personality who in my opinion is the Marcos who is closer to the mold of the Apo himself — the female Ferdinand.

The film as fiction

To be kind and fair, I view her opus "Maid in Malacañang" as a sort of a work of art; overwhelming the scriptwriter-director who may have been too lazy perhaps to produce a documentary film, unable to check his facts and too incompetent to produce a straight fiction. I don't think he went out of his way to peddle lies as truth — unless her pecuniary incentives were just too much. (My brother Cyril, a director-producer and sister Zelmar, a screenwriter, could have done a more professional job.) MnM could be an attempt to be presented as a political satire, a poor one — encapsulated by that mahjong scene with the nuns. I particularly enjoyed that controversial episode — fictitious at best — but what the hell! I love to play mahjong myself!

THIS is a supplementary article to my series on "Centrist Democratic (CD) Agenda for President-elect BBM" which started just after the May 9, elections. My memo to president-elect BBM, was followed by "Political dynasties – party-lists" (May 22); Part 1 – "Centrist agenda for a Marcos regime" (May 25); Part 2 – "Replace the 1987 Constitution" (June 1); and Part 3 – "Institutionalize real political parties" (June 8). I received so many comments by email and FB that I thought I'd simply direct them to our website Centrist Democratic Political Institute, www.cdpi.asia, where all my columns, articles, speeches, essays and blogs are lodged.

The latest queries revolved around clarifications on the relative merits of a parliamentary-federal (Fed-Parl) over a presidential-unitary government. I have written extensively on this and many of my colleagues in the Fed-Parl movement have their essays and articles copied to this CDPI website. Links to excellent articles and books are provided particularly one authored by the incoming National Security Adviser (NSA) Clarita Carlos, Democratic Deficits in the Philippines: What is to be done? (KAS Publication, 2010). Secretary Claire has been my colleague during our salad days when together with our now departed comrades, 'Nene' Pimentel, 'Pepe' Abueva and 'Rey' Teves, we went nationwide spreading the Fed-Parl gospel under the auspices of the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (KAS) and country representative 'Willy' Frehner. KAS is allied with the CDU party of Germany.

The details of what makes Fed-Parl a superior system are extensively discussed in the CD websites. Another interesting link is to the "CoRRECT Movement" websites founded by a young OFW Centrist Democrat, Orion Perez, who has been championing an open liberal economy that welcomes foreign direct investments (FDI) as central to the solution of stark poverty in the Philippines. To detail the relative advantages of the Fed-Parl over the Pres-Unitary will take more than the 1,200 words allotted to this column. For simplicity and clarity, a matrix is provided.

Evidence of Fed-Parl superiority

The following are excerpts from my speeches and lectures in the course of several years in the formation of the Citizens Movement for Federal Philippines (CMFP), the precursor of many of the parliamentary-federal initiatives, mostly of NGO and civil society networks, that led to the establishment of the Centrist Democratic groups. The purpose of this matrix is to present at a glance a list of the world's governments practicing parliamentary, presidential, federal and unitary systems and some permutations thereof. These are by no means a comprehensive argument for the superior system, leaving the readers, perhaps latitude to do research on their own to understand better why the CD groups consider these structural changes primordial. All Philippine presidents understood the necessity for systemic changes from the very start of their regimes, only to falter somewhere in the course of their administrations when perhaps personal political interests or the vested interest of their patrons were inputted. Only the two Aquino governments sought to protect the status quo, post-1986 — advancing the classic arguments that systemic changes are unnecessary, you only need to choose the right leaders. The fallacy of these arguments has been exposed several generations back. Tongue in cheek, it has been advanced too that even if Jesus Christ sits on top of our Philippine government structure, he will fail.

Most corrupt countries

Evidence suggests how countries under the presidential system have serious problems of corruption, development, and peace.

TOP 10 MOST CORRUPT COUNTRIES

1) SOMALIA – FEDERAL-SEMI PRESIDENTIAL
2) NORTH KOREA – UNITARY-PRESIDENTIAL
3) AFGHANISTAN – PRESIDENTIAL
4) SUDAN – FEDERAL-PRESIDENTIAL
5) SOUTH SUDAN – FEDERAL-PRESIDENTIAL
6) ANGOLA – UNITARY-PRESIDENTIAL
7) LIBYA – PARLIAMENTARY-TRANSITIONED FROM TOTALITARIAN RULE
8) IRAQ – FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY
9) VENEZUELA – FEDERAL-PRESIDENTIAL
10) GUINEA BISSAU – SEMI-PRESIDENTIAL

1. From the 2015 Transparency International Corruption index (TIC), the most corrupt/least transparent countries are under a presidential system. These include Somalia, North Korea, Afghanistan, Sudan, South Sudan, Angola, Libya, Venezuela and Guinea-Bissau. Iraq, placed as the eighth most corrupt, is the only country with a federal-parliamentary form.

2. Five of these 10 most corrupt countries (South Sudan, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia and North Korea) are ranked among the 10 least peaceful nations in the world (TIC 2015 Global Peace Index). To recall, the above-mentioned nations have presidential systems except for Iraq.

TOP 10 LEAST PEACEFUL NATIONS

1) SYRIA UNITARY – SEMI-PRESIDENTIAL
2) SOUTH SUDAN – FEDERAL-PRESIDENTIAL
3) IRAQ – FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY
4) AFGHANISTAN – PRESIDENTIAL
5) SOMALIA – SEMI-PRESIDENTIAL
6) YEMEN – UNITARY-PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM
7) CENTRAL AFRICA REPUBLIC – SEMI-PRESIDENTIAL
8) UKRAINE – UNITARY-SEMI PRESIDENTIAL
9) SUDAN – FEDERAL-PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM
10) LIBYA – PARLIAMENTARY-TRANSITIONAL (FROM TOTALITARIAN RULE)

3. Similarly in nations with the highest Terrorism Index, more have a presidential form (Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Central African Republic, Ukraine (70 percent) while the rest have a combination federal-parliamentary government.

TOP 10 LEAST CORRUPT NATIONS

1) DENMARK – UNITARY STATE-MONARCHY-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
2) FINLAND – FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
3) SWEDEN – UNITARY-MONARCHY-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
4) NEW ZEALAND – UNITARY-MONARCHY-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
5) NETHERLANDS – UNITARY-MONARCHY-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
6) NORWAY – UNITARY-MONARCH-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
7) SWITZERLAND – FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY
8) SINGAPORE – UNITARY-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
9) CANADA – FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY
10) GERMANY – FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY

Least corrupt — the better ones

1. By contrast, all of those in the top 10 "least corrupt" nations list (Denmark, Finland, Sweden, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Singapore, Canada, and Germany) have parliamentary systems.

2. Moreover, these topnotchers in curbing corruption (Norway, Australia, Switzerland, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, New Zealand and Canada), including the United States and Ireland, also have very high human development ranking in the 2015 UNDP human development index. Among these roster of highly developed countries, only the US adopts a presidential form, although a federal government.

TOP 15 MOST PROSPEROUS NATIONS

1) NORWAY – UNITARY-MONARCHY-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
2) SWITZERLAND – FEDERAL REPUBLIC
3) DENMARK – UNITARY-MONARCHY-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
4) NEW ZEALAND – UNITARY-MONARCHY-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
5) SWEDEN – UNITARY-MONARCHY-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
6) CANADA – FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY
7) AUSTRALIA – FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY
8) NETHERLANDS – UNITARY-MONARCHY-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
9) FINLAND – FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY
10) IRELAND – UNITARY-PARLIAMENTARY
11) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – FEDERAL-PRESIDENTIAL
12) ICELAND – CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC-PARLIAMENTARY
13) LUXEMBOURG – UNITARY-PARLIAMENTARY
14) GERMANY – FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY
15) UNITED KINGDOM – UNITARY-PARLIAMENTARY

Finally, in the list of the top 15 most prosperous nations (Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, New Zealand, Sweden, Canada, Australia, Netherlands, Finland, Ireland, United States, Iceland, Luxembourg, Germany and the United Kingdom), all except the US whose government is federal-presidential, have parliamentary systems.

This clearly indicates that a federal form may be better than a unitary one; but clearly it also suggests that a parliamentary system is superior to a presidential system in government performance.

President Makoy, the father, understood this only too well, instituting parliamentary government in the 1973 Marcos Constitution, which was abrogated by President Cory, and substituting her 1987 Constitution that enshrined a presidential-unitary system.

Will the Marcos son continue his father's legacy?

Last of 3 parts

LAST week's article touched upon the revisions of the 1987 Cory Constitution toward a parliamentary government, among others. A case was made briefly differentiating between our current presidential versus parliamentary systems, also known as political party government. Empirical data suggests parliamentary systems do better for the citizenry economically than presidential ones. In fact, 60 percent to 70 percent of the economically and politically successful countries in the world are parliamentary governments — arguably the more superior system. Presidential systems, like that of the Philippines, rank among the poorest and less developed in the world.

But for parliamentary government to work well, putting in place real political parties is a must. It is unfortunate that such political parties do not exist in the Philippines. But the Centrist Democrats (CD) have been working with the Congress for decades to pass laws to develop political parties. It has not succeeded. But we are counting that the new BBM government, gleaned from the pronouncements of the Bongbong himself, may be successful in introducing much needed political reforms. A parliamentary form of government preferred by his father was written in the 1973 Marcos Constitution, before it was replaced by a revolutionary constitution and later, the 1987 Constitution of President Cory Aquino.

Political parties — what we have

Prior to his ascent to power, Ferdinand Marcos, and his martial law regime, governments had been dominated by two political parties — the Liberal and Nacionalista — different faces of the same coin. These two old groupings were the closest the Philippines ever had to a two-party system until Marcos, a member of both parties at certain times, imposed martial law in 1972 and President Cory Aquino, who did not believe in political parties, and detested everything Marcos, subsequently allowed the proliferation of a multiparty system in her 1987 Constitution. Since then, the subsequent administrations of FVR, Erap, GMA, PNoy and Duterte were characterized by elective officials jumping from one political party to another in a bizarre game of political musical chairs unflinching of their ideological underpinnings and platform of government, the primary consideration being their share of manna that flows down from the powerful office of the Philippine presidency — the hallmark of our traditional political practices.

This convoluted practice, a phenomenon almost exclusively Filipino, is derided as the "political butterfly" syndrome. In this context, switching political parties is akin to chameleons changing their skin color perfunctorily. This is descriptive of a paucity of ideological perspective and politicians bereft of moral compass anchored on patent expediency. These defections are rampant on the shifting winds of political fortunes and done purely for political survival. Politicians with the temerity to stay affiliated out of principles and values are rare. They are an endangered species.

Almost all of the political parties in the Philippines are structured in a manner that hew closely to the centuries-old patronage system. The patron (in this case the sitting president) who provides the resources makes almost all of the party decisions, especially with regard to those slated to run for elective positions; the party central/executive committees are usually manned by presidential allies and subalterns; and there are no real offices and party activities year-round except during election periods.

Invariably, political parties do not have a uniquely consistent set of beliefs that distinguishes one from the other; at most they proffer slogans and motherhood statements that pass for political doctrines. Their political agenda is predictably directed toward the preservation of the elective members' prerogatives, ensuring the continued accumulation of pelf and privilege for themselves, their families and their allies. Individual programs and family interest, perforce, have precedence over that of a political party's collective appreciation of society's needs. And once they are gifted the privilege to govern, public policies are instituted on the fly emanating from the framework of traditional political practices, their comprehension of national issues seen subjectively through the prism of personal and family interests, thus perpetuating the existing flawed political institutions. These are our aberrant political parties. They need to be transformed into real political parties as a harbinger of a truly working parliamentary government.

Political parties — what we want

Excerpts of my past columns on political party development:

"In more modern developed countries, political parties are the 'sine qua non' of a vibrant democracy. They are not vessels for personal electoral survival and perpetuation in power of dynastic political families. They exist because the citizenry, the wellspring and final arbiter of political power, have diverse issues and concerns that need to be articulated and amplified to a wider political domain. Political parties must provide them with real choices.

"Political parties are the primary vehicles to gain political power by engaging themselves in political contests, primarily elections. The members and their leadership are expected to adhere to a set of principles and strategies written in a platform unique to that party. This espousal of a vision of governance defines the ideological identity of that party — and therefore, the electorate must be permitted a patent choice — as to who must govern them based on what the candidates and their respective parties stand for."

President-elect BBM who is hammering out a supermajority government could persuade his allies in both houses of Congress to institute political reforms immediately, in parallel with constitutional revision initiatives. These reforms are achievable through the passing of the proposed Political Party Development and Financing Act (a bill that has been pending in Congress for several years) which will:

1. Penalize "turncoatism" (or the switching of political parties, "balimbing," "political butterfly") and expulsion from elective public offices and party membership if their acts are deemed inimical to party principles.

2. Enforce transparent mechanisms providing and regulating campaign financing to eliminate corruption and patronage (corporate and individual contributions).

3. Institute strict state subsidy that will professionalize political parties by supporting their political education and campaign initiatives (currently done in European countries).

...Then constitutional revisions

The four administrations following the President Cory regime took two years each before seeking to initiate changes in the 1987 Constitution. FVR's Pirma, Erap's Concord, GMA's 2005 ConCom and Duterte's 2018 ConCom were initiated late in their administration giving the enemies of change and champions of the status quo time to marshal their forces against such enterprises.

FVR's was opposed by Cory and Cardinal Sin; Erap was taken out of office before he could mount a momentum; GMA, beset with her election anomalies and scandals, was openly opposed by her erstwhile allies in the Senate; ditto Duterte, prompting him to "drop the ball" for constitutional revisions and political reforms.

It could be different this time with BBM. Armed with a fresh mandate of a majority vote never before seen since his father Makoy's 1969 election, and inheritor of the elder Ferdinand's legacy of a parliamentary government aborted by Cory through the EDSA People Power Revolution, it is logical for the son to go full circle — abrogate the 1987 Cory Constitution, the fertile soil upon which the many systemic ills of our country sprung forth. Perhaps Ferdinand Makoy's vision of a New Society will be realized through the son's ascendancy after all.