A DIPLOMATIC visit of a head of state is rarely a simple event. It is often a nexus of history, economics and international strategy. In the case of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s recent trip to Washington, D.C. for tariff negotiations, two contrasting analyses emerge, each offering a wholly different interpretation of the same events.

In one narrative, penned excellently in a two-part Manila Times article “China’s coda” by Mauro Samonte (TMT, July 26 and Aug. 2), the author wove his analysis as a geopolitical symphony, depicting the final movement — a finale of an unequal alliance. Classical music buffs will appreciate Samonte’s portrayal of the visit as a choreographed performance orchestrated incongruously by President Trump for America to secure economic dominance and pave the way for an eventual confrontation with China.

In stark contrast, Jaime Yambao’s narrative, “Observations on the president’s Washington D.C. visit” (TMT, Aug. 2, 2025), interprets this as a strategic triumph, a testament to pragmatic leadership and successful negotiation. By examining the rhetorics, historical framings and core assumptions of each, we get a glimpse of how the same facts can lead to such profoundly different conclusions.

A conspiratorial crescendo

First, Samonte presents a deeply cynical and historically informed critique of the US-Philippines alliance. Employing a powerful metaphor of a multi-movement concerto, Samonte suggests that the visit is not a new diplomatic composition but a reprise of historical refrains. This framing immediately sets a tone of historical determinism, implying that the present is merely an echo of the past.

The narrative draws a direct and controversial line from past instances of American exploitation — the post-WWII Parity Rights Amendment, which granted Americans equal rights to exploit Philippine resources — to the present-day Agreement on Reciprocal Trade (ART). This parallel suggests that the ART is not a modern trade deal but a contemporary iteration of a historical sellout, designed to give the US special access to Philippine energy, infrastructure and mineral resources, including those in the South China Sea. The critique is rooted in a fundamental distrust of the US as a partner, seeing it instead as a puppet master orchestrating events for its own geopolitical gain.

It started with Scarborough

The symphony’s overture presumably began with the Scarborough Shoal (Bajo de Masinloc) standoff with China in 2012. To recall, the US deftly steered the dispute from a physical confrontation to a legal one, resulting in the arbitral tribunal 2016 ruling that invalidated China’s nine-dash line claim. This maneuver ostensibly was not a genuine pursuit of justice but a calculated move by America to create a legal basis for future actions against China — with the Philippines’ role as a lackey.

Further solidifying its conspiratorial tone, the narrative links the diplomatic and economic aspects of Marcos’ visit to a broader military plot. The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) is not viewed as a beneficial security pact but as a new form of US military occupation; further asserting that the Philippines is being used as a strategic pawn to push China against the wall. This perspective is fatalistic, concluding with an apocalyptic “coda” that predicts an eventual Chinese dominance.

It also draws on internal class dynamics, arguing that Marcos represents not the Filipinos’ interest but is instead aligned with the “1 percent” oligarchy that profits from these onerous arrangements. Ultimately, the geopolitical symphony is a cautionary tale, a warning against what it sees as a persistent national betrayal, with a dark, inevitable ending.

The pragmatic visit: A strategic triumph

As a contrapuntal, Yambao portrays the same events through a lens of strategic success and diplomatic prowess. Marcos is framed as a skilled and intelligent leader. Here, the metaphor of a chess player replaces Samonte’s symphony aficionado, suggesting a careful, thoughtful and proactive approach to international relations rather than a reactive, predetermined one.

This narrative highlights the tangible, positive outcomes of the visit, such as the reduction of US tariffs on a portion of Philippine exports to 19 percent, a move that would make Philippine goods more competitive. A particularly powerful point is the zero-tariff deal on pharmaceuticals, which Yambao praises as an empathetic move that prioritizes the welfare of the people. Yambao directly contradicts Samonte narrative’s claim that Marcos is only acting in the interest of the elite. This pragmatic visit narrative also reinterprets the security aspects of the trip as a major victory.

Instead of seeing America as a warmonger, Yambao views the US as a necessary and reliable partner in protecting the Philippines’ sovereign interests; emphasizing the visit’s role in providing the clearest policy definition so far of the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT), with Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth clarifying that the treaty covers armed attacks on Philippine forces “anywhere in the Pacific, including the South China Sea.”

This is framed as a crucial step in safeguarding the country’s EEZ and its natural resources in the WPS. Another plus is the Philippines’ access to additional funding through Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” — bolstering defense capabilities, a development seen as a beneficial modernization effort rather than a precursor to conflict. This perspective is fundamentally optimistic and forward-looking, celebrating diplomatic skills and the strengthening of alliances as a path to a more secure and prosperous future.

From where one sits

The profound differences between these two scenarios do not stem from a disagreement over the basic facts of the visit — that it happened, that agreements were discussed and that military cooperation was a topic. The real clash lies in the interpretation of these facts. Samonte’s geopolitical symphony operates from a historical and ideological assumption of American exploitation, viewing every US action through a filter of manipulation and self-interest. It sees the US-Philippines relationship as fundamentally unequal, rooted in a history of neocolonialism. The Washington encounter therefore is a betrayal, the agreements are concessions, and the military alliance is a dangerous trap. And Marcos is a patsy!

Conversely, the pragmatic visit operates from an assumption of sovereign equality and mutual interest. It sees America as a pragmatic partner, a powerful ally whose national interests can be strategically leveraged for the benefit of the Philippines. The visit is therefore a success, the agreements are triumphs, and the military alliance is a necessary shield. And Marcos is a genius!

Ultimately, the storyline choice is between a deterministic, fatalistic worldview as against an optimistic, bureaucracy-driven perspective. One sees the Philippines as a helpless pawn in a larger game, doomed to repeat a cycle of subservience and conflict. The other sees a nation successfully navigating a complex geopolitical landscape, making strategic decisions that assert its interests and secure its future.

These two articles form a compelling study in geopolitical rhetoric, demonstrating how the same “facts” are often just the raw materials that can be woven into diametrically opposed narratives from which competing realities are constructed.

I take the liberty of presenting the contrasting views while not openly taking sides. I leave this to my readers to arrive at their own conclusions while mine shall be held “in pectore” — except for my obvious disdain for the cognitively impaired Trump and the clueless and dilettante scion of a dictator.

Second of a series

BEYOND the immediate reforms to our dysfunctional political parties, a deeper examination of the party-list concept itself reveals a profound disconnect between its original intent and its currently perverted reality. During its conceptualization, the appointed Constitutional Commission (President Cory’s 1987 ConCom) was initially in favor of a shift from a presidential to a parliamentary form of government. The framers, drawing inspiration from European models, particularly the German parliament, envisioned a system where elected members from parliamentary districts (akin to our congressmen) would be complemented by a party-list component. This module was designed to give voice to marginalized or underrepresented sectors within the legislature through “proportional representation,” based on the votes each party obtained in the preceding elections.

For instance, during elections, each political party would draw a “party-list” specifically composed to represent and empower groups such as labor, peasants, urban poor, veterans, indigenous communities, women, youth, and the differently abled — with the notable exception of the religious sector. The crucial nuance was that these party-list representatives were not meant to be elected independently or outside of the political parties vying for power; rather, they were intended to be an integral part of the political party itself, ensuring that their representation was woven into the broader ideological fabric of the party. The overarching goal was to enhance the representation of these marginalized sectors, allowing them a direct and amplified voice in the legislative process.

Cory’s constitutional folly

However, a critical misstep occurred. The “heavily elitist” framers of the 1987 Constitution, appointed by President Cory Aquino, ultimately balked at enacting a shift to a parliamentary government. Instead, they preserved the presidential system but, bewilderingly, retained the party-list provisions in isolation. Our current party-list system, therefore, stands as an anomaly — a “mongrelized German/European version” that has been fundamentally twisted from its original purpose. This perversion manifests in several detrimental ways: anyone can now form a “political party of single issues” and register as a party-list. This has led to an absurd proliferation of party-lists representing groups such as athletes, security guards, market vendors, and teachers — categories that are strictly not the envisioned marginalized sectors of Philippine society.

An adjunct to political dynasties 

This distortion has opened the floodgates to a disheartening array of opportunistic abuses. The party-list system has become a convenient vehicle for relatives of sitting elective officials, including wives and even “concubines,” to secure seats in Congress without facing the direct scrutiny of district elections. It also serves as a temporary dumping ground for election losers, allowing them to circumvent the popular will and maintain a foothold in power. To qualify for a seat, a party-list group must merely receive at least 2 percent of the total valid votes cast nationally for party-list candidates. Voters, casting their ballots for both district representatives (naming specific candidates) and only one party-list (with unnamed candidates) on the same ballot, are often left to navigate a bewildering landscape of choices, many of which do not genuinely represent the marginalized. The tragic irony is that the party-list system, originally conceived to enhance the representation of marginalized and underrepresented sectors in the legislative process and allow them a crucial voice in governance, has now devolved into a bastion of political dynasties. Instead of empowering the truly voiceless, it has become another avenue for the entrenched elite to perpetuate their hold on power, further consolidating their influence and stifling genuine grassroots representation.

Dysfunctional presidential system

Over the years, I have written columns on the evils of the presidential system and provided alternatives. I refer the readers to The Manila Times related articles excerpts from which I reprint (“Presidential to parliamentary – the preconditions,” Sept. 8, 2018; “Presidential system – patronage politics and dynasties,” March 28, 2018; “Imperial presidency redux,” May 25, 2018; “Unitary-presidential and alternatives,” March 15, 2023).

The arguments we proffered simply are that the presidential system has evolved cultural behavioral practices inimical to the greater majority. It has not substantially eradicated poverty in the country. Over the decades, stark impoverishment became the petri dish on which democratic deficits plaguing our country today are incubating; from the emergence of traditional political patronage practices, allowing the proliferation of political dynasties that preserve political power among and within families, to the culture of impunity, corruption and criminality, to the rise of an oligarchy that tends to control both political and economic power. Additionally, the core of the evils of the presidential system is centered on the nationwide election of a single individual cloaking him/her with the lethal consequences of tremendous concentrated powers. Empirical data shows billions of pesos are expended to propel a single person to the presidency. The tremendous amount of logistics raised for such a campaign makes the winner vulnerable to the moneyed few that provide the same. The heated competition for the top post among four or five driven alpha personalities over ponderous and costly campaign periods opens an aperture for the oligarchy and the moneyed elite to inject their agenda into the political exercise, resulting in these donors exacting their pounds of flesh upon the winners, the latter conceding to rent-seeking practices and oftentimes granting outright regulatory capture. It is a well-known dictum that one who controls political power controls economic power.

“But the most glaring defect of the presidential system of government is that this is the embryo upon which patronage politics is nurtured. For almost 100 years the system flourished feeding upon the least desired facet of the Filipino culture, the desire for and dependence on a benefactor from the datu and sultan, heading a clan; to the Spanish patron looking over the indios, to the American ‘big-brother’; morphing into the Philippine president, the ‘father’ of a people...” (ibid) With the president on top of the governance totem pole our politicians have perfected a system of patronage where government coffers and benefits for the citizenry are dispensed through a political structure down to the lowest construct of government, controlled by them. This system, relic of a feudal and colonial past, has now been elevated to perfection in modern Philippine politics. To quote professor Edmund Tayao, an eminent political analyst, “The presidential system is a zero-sum system... regardless of how many candidates and competing parties, only one can win and the significance of coalition-building dependent significantly on the winning candidate, that is, after the elections shall have already passed.” And I might add too: the winner is the new “patron”; the loser, again, is us.

Toward a constitutional revision

Ultimately, these interconnected issues — the dysfunctional presidential system, the flawed and convoluted political party system, the perverted party-list, and the rampant political dynasties — stand as a stark and challenging political legacy. These systemic flaws are deeply embedded in the 1987 Constitution, a document that, while intended to usher in a new era of democracy, inadvertently created structural weaknesses that continue to undermine our nation’s progress and perpetuate the very traditional politics it sought to overcome. Addressing these fundamental flaws requires not just piecemeal adjustments but a comprehensive and unwavering commitment to genuine political reform, a commitment that prioritizes the collective good over the self-serving interests of the few.

To be continued on July 30, 2025

First of three parts

MY column last week featured the four sets of siblings in the Senate (Cayetanos, Villars, Tulfos and Estrada/Ejercitos) and how the tentacles of political families could affect governance. This week’s article expands the profile to the rest of the Senate whose membership comes from different political parties, alliances and aggroupments. In principle, these political parties are differentiated through their party platform from whence their program of government emanate — if at all these are indeed anchored on a set of beliefs, ideals or even an ideology of governance.

Spoiler alert! These political parties are largely devoid of such values, instead advocating motherhood mantras passing them off as their political ideals. This isn’t a personal attack on individual senators, but rather a critical examination of a systemic flaw that has long plagued Philippine political parties — pure crass expediency.

Political chameleons

The current Senate offers a vivid microcosm of these systemic flaws, laying bare the superficiality of political affiliations and the rampant spectacle of political opportunism. While some senators might maintain longstanding affiliations — Bong Go and Bato de la Rosa with PDP-Laban; Bam Aquino and Kiko Pangilinan with the Liberal Party; Pia Cayetano, Camille Villar and Mark Villar with the Nacionalista Party; Tito Sotto, Loren Legarda, Win Gatchalian, and JV Ejercito with the Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC); and with Imee Marcos often existing in a political space neither here nor there — these ties are often more shallow than substantive.

The political landscape is characterized by a strong tendency for senators to run as independents or readily switch party affiliations. Panfilo Lacson and Francis Escudero have notably demonstrated the ability to garner votes without strict party machinery. More recently, the successful independent candidacies of Robin Padilla and Raffy Tulfo in the 2022 elections further emphasized this growing appeal of non-traditional candidates. Their victories demonstrate a public appetite for figures perceived as outside the conventional political establishment, yet paradoxically, these very candidacies underscore the weakness of a party system unable to consistently produce candidates who resonate with the electorate on the basis of shared principles. Senators such as Lito Lapid and Migz Zubiri exemplify the fluidity of allegiances, having been affiliated with multiple parties or endorsed by various coalitions throughout their careers. This adaptability underscores a political environment where personal popularity and local machinery frequently outweigh rigid party lines.

The ease with which politicians jump ship is often cloaked in the rhetoric prioritizing loyalty to country over party, paraphrasing President Quezon’s dictum. Politicians who remain affiliated with a party out of genuine ideology and values are lamentably rare — an endangered species.

This is not intended to disparage all politicians and their affiliations but the political party system in the Philippines, which ought to be the backbone of a truly democratic governance, is severely defective. This inadequacy often leaves elected leaders with very little choice but to change colors and defect for personal survival.

A flawed political architecture

Our nation finds itself ensnared in the unfortunate trappings of a dysfunctional political system, one that consistently prioritizes the self serving interests of its elected officials over the collective welfare of its citizenry. This entrenched form of traditional politics, deeply embedded within the fabric of our political parties, operates on a fundamental consideration: the political survival of its members and the preservation of their pelf and privileges. This myopic focus has fostered an oppressive tyranny of numbers, where the sheer quantity of elected individuals in power takes precedence, irrespective of the quality of their leadership or the purity of their intentions. Consequently, the democratic ideal of “politics is addition” transforms into a disturbing aberration, as elections become a mere popularity contest, with candidates’ winnability eclipsing any genuine ideological perspectives.

This lamentable state of affairs forces political parties into an ignoble compromise, compelling them to recruit individuals already popular with the masses — actors, athletes, entertainment, and media personalities — thereby relegating political creed, principles and beliefs to the ignominious back burner. The discerning electorate, faced with a dearth of genuine choices and meaningful debate on substantive issues, is then paradoxically blamed for their selections, perpetuating another anomalous dictum: “One deserves the government one votes into power.” This narrative, however, conveniently overlooks the systemic flaws that preclude real choices, condemning the voters to a perpetual state of ignorance, diminished by a system designed to perpetuate itself rather than to serve.

Perpetual cycle of ‘political butterflies’

In contrast, in more modern developed countries, political parties are not merely vessels for personal electoral survival and perpetuation in power of political families. Instead, they exist because the citizenry, the wellspring and final arbiter of political power, possess diverse issues and aspirations that demand articulation and amplification within the broader political domain.

These parties are expected to provide voters with “real choices,” based on distinct platforms, visions of governance, and fairly decent leadership qualities. Members are expected to adhere to these platforms, offering a clear direction for government, allowing voters to make informed decisions about who should govern them based on what candidates and their parties truly stand for.

However, we do not have such parties in our country. Our parties are funded by self-proclaimed candidates, party bigwigs and oligarchs, who then dictate programs and platforms, if any, and select who runs for public office. This patronage politics is the very reason behind the massive exodus of members from one political party to another, creating a fluid, unprincipled political class where politicians are PDP Laban today, LP the past regime, KBL during the dictatorship and Lakas-NUCD tomorrow.

This pattern of expedient behavior by politicians is dubbed the “political butterfly syndrome,” flitting and floating from party to party, descriptive of a paucity of ideological perspectives and lacking moral compass. These defections are rampant on the shifting winds of political fortunes. The deeply ingrained traditional political practice incubated in our unitary-presidential system transforms elections into mere opportunities for power players and their oligarchic allies to consolidate their forces and unscrupulous politicians to sell their loyalty to the highest bidder.

A call for real political parties

The solution lies in the creation and institutionalization of real political parties that can truly aggregate the varied aspirations of the citizenry, giving them genuine options and empowering them to emerge from their ignorance, thereby breaking out of the clutches of the dynasties.

This demands a fundamental shift away from the personality-driven politics that currently dominates the landscape. It requires fostering an environment where political parties are built on shared principles, distinct ideologies and long-term visions for national development, rather than merely serving as vehicles for individual political ambitions. Such parties would be accountable to their members and to the electorate for the platforms they espouse, creating a clear framework for governance and enabling voters to make informed decisions based on policy, not just popularity.

Addressing these fundamental flaws requires not just rhetoric but concrete legislative action, particularly the passage of the Political Party Development and Financing Act, that Centrist Democrats label the Rufus Rodriguez bill, coupled with a fundamental re-evaluation and reform of the party-list system to align it with its original, noble intent.

ON July 28, 2025, the 20th Congress — the Senate and House of Representatives — convenes. This will be timed with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s State of the Nation Address (SONA) which is to be delivered in a joint session of Congress at the Batasang Pambansa. This is a traditional festive event where the honorable senators and congressmen/women with their spouses — legitimate or otherwise — preen for the TV cameras attired in their finest Filipiniana costumes. The men in Barong Tagalog and the women in their baro’t saya, kimona or terno, with their distinctive butterfly sleeves designed by their incongruously expensive couturiers. The nouveau riche — or the soon-to-be — will come in droves, some displaying their branded accessories, Rolex, Cartier and Patek Philippe, and Louis Vuitton, YSL, Hermes Birkin, etc. Some scattered progressives, leftist and genuine representatives of indigenous communities will strike a contrast by wearing real native tribal bahag (loincloth), but being in the minority they will not merit TV time.

Senate

This week’s column exposes to the public a different angle on some of these senators and their ilk we voted to power, now decoupled from the leverage we ordinary voters once possessed before elections.

The Philippine Senate, a venerable institution designed as a deliberative body epitomizing the national interest, is one of the three independent branches of government patterned after the American federal system representing its 50 states (two senators per state, six-year term and no term limits). Our model, imposed by Westerners, ignorant of the nuances of our ethos, was meant to be a microcosm of the nation’s political milieu and cultural diversity.

Divorced from the American practice, our senators are elected to serve six years, limited to two terms. Senators often come from established political families that morphed into political dynasties (polidyn). The first siblings to have sat together in Congress were Jose Laurel Jr. and Salvador “Doy” Laurel. The former, a speaker of the House and Doy as senator and later President Cory’s unlamented vice president.

A family heirloom

Today, the 20th Congress is a perversion containing four sets of siblings from polidyns. Philippine studies show (Ronal Mendoza, ASOG, 2019) that these narratives of kinship reveal a persistent shadow of corruption exacerbated by ever-shifting sands of political party affiliations. More dubious are the bloodlines intertwining the Senate and the bureaucracy of regimes in power. Cynthia Villar of the real-estate billionaire family was for a time sitting as a powerful senator while her son, Mark Villar, was the equally powerful secretary of public works in the Duterte regime, then later elected senator. Upon the retirement of mother Cynthia, senator Mark’s sister, Camille, has been elected senator and assumes her mother’s former post. Their patriarch, Manny Villar, Cynthia’s husband, was once the Senate president and before that was speaker of the House of Representatives that initiated President Joseph “Erap” Estrada’s impeachment.

The current configuration highlights a sustained family presence. The Tulfo brothers, Erwin and Raffy, could have assumed a bizarre familial connection had Ben, the third brother, won in the last senatorial election. While senator Erwin was a party-list representative before his Senate bid, Raffy, a media personality, won his Senate seat in 2022. So too are the Cayetano siblings — Pia and Alan Peter — both children of the late senator Rene Cayetano, the dynasty founder. Alan Peter once ran for vice president as Rodrigo Duterte’s running mate. Pia is on her second set of a 12-year stint, solidifying the family’s legislative footprint.

Beyond full relatives, the dynamic extends to half-siblings, exemplified by Jinggoy Estrada and JV Ejercito, the children of former president Erap. Jinggoy, is the son of legal wife former senator Loi and JV, son of common-law wife, former San Juan mayor Guia Gomez. This lineage underscores how political arcana can be passed down and branched out within complex family structures, perpetuating a political legacy across generations.

Criminal syndicates

The discourse surrounding Philippine senators is not solely about familial ties. A significant and often contentious aspect involves allegations of corruption and criminality, which have cast a long shadow over the institution. A case in point is Jinggoy Estrada who faced charges of plunder and bribery stemming from the infamous Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), commonly known as the “pork barrel,” scam. This scandal involved the alleged misuse of discretionary funds allocated to lawmakers, that were allegedly funneled to bogus nongovernment organizations masterminded by Janet Lim-Napoles in exchange for kickbacks.

Jinggoy’s legal rollercoaster ride is reflective of a weak and corrupt justice system. First acquitted of plunder by the Sandiganbayan, he was convicted of one count of direct bribery and two counts of indirect bribery in January 2024, a verdict that included a prison sentence, a fine and disqualification from public office. This conviction however was not final and executory at that time, thus allowing him to again run for senator.

Subsequently in a highly questionable move in August 2024, the Sandiganbayan reversed its decision, effectively clearing Jinggoy of the direct and indirect bribery charges. This acquittal was upheld in December 2024, solidifying his clearance from these specific corruption charges. As of July 5, 2025, Jinggoy Estrada has been acquitted of both plunder and bribery charges related to the PDAF scam. He goes scot-free.

Teflon senators

A slight digression for historical context is the case of former senator Juan Ponce Enrile — a “Makoy” henchman — who was likewise a key figure in the PDAF scam. Enrile was arrested and detained but eventually acquitted of plunder. It was his chief of staff, Gigi Reyes, who was convicted of the crime and did jail time for more than six years.

Jinggoy’s kabarkada and co-accused — former senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. (coming 13th place in the recent election) also faced charges of plunder and graft. He was acquitted of plunder and his graft cases were dismissed by the Sandiganbayan — but he was ordered to return P124.5 million in civil liability. But his former chief of staff Richard Cambe was convicted and tragically died in prison. These high-profile acquittals in major corruption cases have often sparked public debate and scrutiny, raising questions about accountability and justice within the Philippine legal system. The big fishes get away — the small fry are eaten.

The cabal of senators provides a fascinating lens through which to view the intricacies of the nation’s dysfunctional political and justice system. It underscores the persistent challenge of corruption, with high-profile cases like the PDAF scam — and the latest anomalous 2025 budget manipulation — shaping public perception and continually testing the pathetic justice system. The fluctuating status of these cases, particularly the acquittal of powerful figures, continue to fuel national conversations about accountability.

It highlights the pervasive nature of polidyns, where relatives and siblings often follow in each other’s footsteps, extending family influence across legislative branches and governance. The Philippine constitution is unequivocally on the prohibition of polidyns yet allows their survival and proliferation shielded by that critical escape proviso, “as may be defined by law.” Who makes the law but the dynasts!

These intertwined relationships, a defining characteristic of political reality in the higher echelon of leadership, leads to an entrenched power base from whence regulatory capture, rent-seeking engagements through its influence-peddling tentacles reach out to the nooks and crannies of governance.

These are the honorable senators we voted for!

ON June 22, 2025, US President Trump announced: “The US military carried out a massive precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime. The strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.”

Trump’s “Operation Midnight Hammer” was not so much as to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes but to give in to Netanyahu and the powerful Israel Zionist lobby to pull America into this war with Iran on their behalf.

On June 23, Iran retaliated with missile strikes on the US base in Qatar. Reportedly, Iran alerted Trump prior to this ‘tit-for-tat’ assault giving Americans time to vacate the base, thus no American casualties were inflicted. This evidently was to telegraph to Trump that Khamenei’s intention was not to go to war with America but to retaliate for the June 22 US bombings quenching Iran’s thirst for revenge. Khamenei was not showing weakness — it was strategic choice.

Fake ceasefire

Then Trump announced a ceasefire. This was immediately contradicted by Iran’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, who declared: “As Iran repeatedly made clear: Israel launched war on Iran, not the other way around. As of now, (8:46 p.m. June 23, 2025) there is NO ‘agreement’ on any ceasefire or cessation of military operations. However, provided that the Israeli regime stops its illegal aggression against the Iranian people no later than 4 a.m. Teheran time, we have no intention to continue our response afterwards. The final decision on the cessation of our military operations will be made later.”

Then on June 24, the New York Times published a leaked report from America’s intelligence community that the bombing may have only set back Iran’s nuclear program by a few months. Apparently, Iran, anticipating the attack, moved out to safety its cache of enriched uranium days prior to the B2 bombings. With a few repairs here and there, Iran could be back on track.

Trump, Hegseth and Rubio have gone ballistic over the leak catching them on their lies. Their overreaction suggests the accuracy of the disclosures. All this hullaballoo therefore is for nothing, changed nothing, collapsing Trump’s delusional narrative of the total obliteration of Iran’s nuclear capability.

Trump’s victory: A premature ejaculation

It is now apparent that there were no ceasefire negotiations between Iran and Israel. Trump, the consummate deal-maker negotiated a ceasefire by himself, with himself — and unilaterally declared a ceasefire. There are no written documents that lay out the conditions — just another one of his “art of a deal” gimmicks. It seems clear that Trump badly wants an exit from Iran that will make him look good — even branding the attack grandiosely as the “12-day war” — basking in the accolades of the MAGA, portraying him as a hero worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize. Trump wants out of this war mindful of his reputation as the self-proclaimed “No-war Peace President” that could tarnish his legacy — whatever is left of it.

Meanwhile, President Masoud Pezeshkian claimed that (Israel) suffered “a severe and historic punishment,” in effect declaring Iran’s victory. Netanyahu on the other hand whose standing in Israel is now higher not so much for Israel’s flagrant unprovoked attacked but more importantly for sucking Trump and America into this war, wanted this ceasefire desperately.

With Trump opting out of the war, Israel won’t have the wherewithal for what is evolving into a war of attrition. And the missiles are once again hurtling into each other’s territories, eliciting a quirky outburst from the Donald, “I’m not happy with Israel... we basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing.”

Word is out that Israel badly wants a ceasefire. For one, Israel is not prepared for a war of attrition while Iran is. Israel is running out of weaponry; their Iron Dome and David Sling missile defenses are depleted. Its economy is stagnant, investments are drying up and these recent events are triggering mass exodus, citizens desperate to flee on the so-called “escape flotilla” and “rescue flights.” The Israeli government recently issued “... a decision effectively barring them from leaving” (Middle East Eye, June 27, 2025). Netanyahu wanted to put an end to the war, and prevent further destruction in Tel Aviv, Haifa and other major cities that are becoming more and more like the devastated Gaza. He went to Trump, and Trump did it.

Replay of Iraq and Afghanistan

Trump suffers from historical illiteracy as he doesn’t read nor appreciate events that are not centered on him; thus, he is incapable of grasping nuances of the past that are worth remembering. He is probably whom George Santayana was referring to in his oft-repeated aphorism about those condemned to repeat the past. What Trump did after the bombing was reminiscent of George “Dubya” Bush’s declaration of “Mission Accomplished” aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003 — purportedly marking the end of major combat operations in Iraq; except that the Iraq war went on for another eight years, costing hundred thousands of lives and wasting America’s treasure, before its final defeat and withdrawal in 2011. Trump in his arrogance did Bush one better by abruptly declaring the current Iran-Israel war over after 12 days — while both countries continue to rain missiles on each other’s citizens. To use an idiom in a game of golf Trump so loves — “he lacks follow through.”

As should have been predictable, Trump lives up to the name given to him — TACO for “Trump always chickens out.” His precipitate declaration of the end of the war and a ceasefire could ironically be interpreted as his surrender — not Iran’s. What turns out to be Trump’s bragging rights was a complete fiasco.

So, what now?

This war is not over. Trump vowed that he will bomb Iran again if it restarts enriching uranium to weapons grade. He will not even permit Iran to have a nuclear capability for civilian use. Aside from this proviso, America has no clear objectives in this war. But Israel has.

For Netanyahu, this is not just about Iran and Israel. This is about the Jewish state that does not simply want hegemony but dominance over the entire region — and a non-nuclear Middle East except for Israel, God’s chosen people. With the Arab-Muslin-Palestinian-Jews universe to contend with, this Iran-Israel war will not end until Gaza is resolved. Israel is dangerously working towards ethnic cleansing within its border belying a two-state solution in Palestine.

And since the Zionist-Israeli lobby has co-opted America’s foreign policy in the Middle East, the US is complicit not only in this war but conflict with the whole Muslim world. And if history is to be a guide, particularly America’s less than stellar record in the past 80 years, America will be mired for months, if not years, and eventually loses. And Allah forbid, with Israel as the puppet master, this war could spread to those theaters where other actors are now intently watching — Putin, Xi Jinping and Kim Jung-un.

Trump and Netanyahu have to go — in a regime change!

CONGRATULATIONS, Donald. You have your war! Ukraine was Biden’s; Obama shared Iraq and Afghanistan, with Bush Jr. who started them. Clinton had his Kosovo and the Bosnian wars; Bush the dad has his Gulf wars, Desert Shield and Desert Storm; Reagan had his invasion of Grenada; Johnson had his invasion of the Dominican Republic; and had to share with Nixon and Kennedy for one of the longest — the Vietnam War where the pajama-clad nuoc mam-cum-rice-eating combatants of Ho Chi Minh beat the hell out of the MRE-fed American grunts.

Warmongest country

This litany of America’s wars is not simply “tongue and cheek” metaphors. A brief history of the world’s most warmongering nation validates this assertion and may help us situate the current conflicts. This column will not discuss America’s internal wars and conflicts from the American Revolution in 1715-1783 through the two world wars of 1917 and 1941.

Back then, nuclear weapons were not in play except for an instance that wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But today, there are nine countries with a combined total of 12,100 nuclear warheads that can obliterate the planet several times over.

America loves wars. It is in its DNA. And it’s good for business. President Eisenhower first warned the world of the military-industrial complex (MIC), this symbiotic relationship between the US government and the defense industry that leads “to unwarranted influence on US foreign policy jeopardizing peace and democracy.”

In the 80 years since World War II, America never won a single major war — Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. But winning or losing are of no real consequence. The US economy and prosperity to a large extent were propelled by wars. America is the world’s No. 1 arms dealer, exporting 43 percent of the world’s weapons.

Israel-Iran war

But the relevant wars that directly impact the Israel-Iran conflict today is contained in what Jeffrey Sachs, the noted political scientist, revealed in a political document post-911 called “Clean Break” which advances that Israel need not fight militants supporting the Palestinians against Israel head-on — al-Qaida, IS, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. Just bring down the governments that support them in a “regime change.” Thus, the wars the US was involved in in the last 30 years were on behalf of Netanyahu to overthrow Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Iraq and now Iran.

Netanyahu always had a hard-on embroiling America in a war with Iran. Jeffrey Sachs has written that since 1996, “Netanyahu’s greatest dream was to go to war with Iran and pull the United States into this war... his philosophy and approach is to dominate the Middle East, use Israel’s nuclear monopoly in the region to bludgeon, kill, assassinate and overthrow any government that opposes Israel’s actions... the end purpose of all of this seems to allow Israel to define its own borders in any way that it chooses as expansively as it chooses... and the complete control over the territory of British mandatory Palestine meaning that Israel would have full control over Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem...” (“US prepares to join war against Iran,” Jeffrey Sachs, YouTube, June 16, 2025).

The Donald is putty in the hands of Bibi and the US Congress is virtually under the control of the Zionist Christian and Jewish Israeli lobby. What better way to achieve the above scenario than to replicate Bush Jr.’s raison d’etre for invading Iraq in 2003 — destroying Sadam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) — which turned out to be a dud. The same playbook is being used by these two madmen.

Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s own director of national intelligence, back in March testified before Congress that America has conclusive evidence that Iran is not building nuclear bombs and have no ambitions of going nuclear; contradicting Netanyahu who has been doing the same song and dance number since 1996 that “Iran is only weeks away from developing nuclear weapons updating this message in 2001, 2002, 2006.” And the unthinking US president went along “I will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.”

True or not, Iran’s possessing nuclear weapons may play eerily well into new geopolitical perspectives. Some argue that Iran’s nuclear capabilities could truly become a deterrent to persistent wars in the Middle East by providing another level of mutual terror preventing a temptation toward shattering the mutually assured destruction (MAD) syndrome. North Korea’s case has been cited; North Korea’s possessing nuclear capability has reduced Trump to just rhetorical invasion. In contrast to Libya’s castration and Ghadaffi’s assassination after surrendering its prerogative to developing nuclear capabilities.

Then again, with the cognitively impaired authoritarian Trump who claims to know better than all his intelligence professionals and unable to think all implications through, nonchalantly decides America’s and the world’s fate by siding with Netanyahu’s proclivities. Living up to his new moniker — Trump the TACO — he backtracked a little, giving Iran two weeks to negotiate a deal. But not for long.

Anti-war president

Running as the anti-war president in 2016, the Donald announced that he would not lead the US into any wars. He will keep America and the world safe from World War III. Upon assuming office, he proceeded to shred unilaterally the Iran nuclear deal, negotiated by President Obama under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Iran immediately resumed its nuclear program, planting the seeds for this current conflict.

Friday the 13th, an ominous day, Israel attacked Iran. Trump lied about America’s involvement. But believing Israel was succeeding in Iran’s devastation, Trump changed his tune, from non-involvement to “...we are in control and dominating the skies over Iran...” — grabbing the credit. With that, he casually brought America into this conflict. Adding to his rantings, a hint of an assassination: “We know exactly where the so-called supreme leader (Khamenei) is hiding, he is an easy target but is safe there, we are not going to take him out and kill him, at least not for now.”

A continuing tragedy

Except for Trump being played by Netanyahu and America’s hatred for Iran dating back to US President Carter’s presidency when the American puppet Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was deposed during the Iranian revolution and subsequent ascendancy of Ayatollah Khomeini; there are no clear goals for America’s evolving support for Israel. As the noted American political scientist John Mearsheimer asks, “Does Netanyahu and Trump have a theory of victory?” It seems that Israel’s “...objective was to get the United States involved from the outset... and that (Israel’s) goal was not to win by themselves but to bring about a war between the United States and Iran because without such a war how can Israel win?”

While this was being written, Trump directed American warplanes to deploy its “bunker buster bombs” on the Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz nuclear facilities. “Israel can’t destroy Iran’s underground nuclear facility,” Trump declared. So, he did it himself.

The US Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war. Attacking Iran unprovoked is an act of war. Trump, the only sitting American president already convicted of 34 counts of felony, just committed another crime.

Netanyahu must be jumping with glee!

MY column last week was about the global trade war resulting from Trump's tariffs. This act — unsanctioned by the US Congress — was aimed at protecting American industries through his faulty concept of reindustrializing America ("Trump's fool's errand," TMT, June 11, 2025).

Tariffs were meant to lure manufacturing back to America. These protectionist initiatives with complex consequences instead proved to be counterproductive, leading to price increases to US consumers, job displacements in legacy industrial sectors that often face their own challenges adapting to new technologies and shifting market demands.

The long-term effects are still unfolding, as nations adjust to new economic realities and global trade dynamics, exacerbating volatility.

But this singular act among many is just Trump's latest that US allies and foes attribute to what the columnist Zachary Wolf of CNN labeled as the "madman theory." Trump acknowledged this when asked in a presscon if he would ever use military force to defend Taiwan. His retort (referring to Xi Jinping): "I wouldn't have to, because he respects me and he knows I'm f***ing crazy..."

Madman's compulsions

Last February, Trump suggested to buy and occupy Greenland "... for national and international security." Denmark's curt reply: Greenland's not for sale! Trump also suggested to annex Canada as the US' 51st state. He topped this off with his grandiose plan to 'own' the Gaza Strip, relocate the Palestinians to 'someplace somewhere' and turn it into the "Riviera of the Middle East."

These harebrained declarations were never debated in Congress but got the full endorsement of Netanyahu, the equally unhinged premier of Israel, Trump's twin, currently decimating Gaza.

Conflicts on tipping points

Currently, the world is confronted by crisis after crisis that could lead to even more serious "hot shooting wars." And here is Trump interjecting inane and alarming ideas on how to resolve them — all off the cuff. It is disconcerting for the most powerful politician, believed to be cognitively impaired, to be acting in an infantile fashion, all by himself, "with no adults in the room," unmindful of the dangerous implications of his compulsions.

Ukraine, for example, continues to be a flashpoint for global tensions. The war has now resulted in significant humanitarian crises and economic devastation. The potential for escalation through miscalculations remains high, particularly with the involvement of the old Soviet countries now in NATO. Trump as president-elect arrogantly but foolishly declared he can end the war in "24 hours upon taking office" — and proceeded to berate and humiliate Zelinskyy and alienate European allies in that famous White House presscon on Feb. 28, 2025.

Now the Ukraine peace process is on hold, the war dragging on with Russia having a slight edge. But Trump, who painted himself into a corner as the self-proclaimed peacemaker — "because Putin is my good friend and he listens to me" — may execute another precipitate move, another madness. Meantime his 90-day tariff suspension will terminate in two weeks.

Tariff negotiations

The current approach to reciprocal negotiations which Trump touts as "kicking ass" is a prime example of his leveraging US power to extract concessions from US trading partners. Yet with such outrageous challenges, no wonder his prime target for negotiations, China, is not that receptive.

The rah-rah boys in his Cabinet and the cowed GOP leadership ascribe Trump's moves as negotiating tactics — utilizing a strategy of "maximum pressure" — that aggressive bully tactics could lead to better deals. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt oozes with syrupy gooeyness, describing her boss as the "greatest negotiator in the world, ever."

MAGA cliches

Trump's "America First" agenda, central to what passes for a political philosophy, prioritizes US interests, often at the expense of traditional alliances discarding global norms. This deliberate disruption of established political mores and practices allows him license to insult allies, spit on diplomatic protocols, which his MAGA extols as refreshing behavior. And this isolates America.

Trump's rhetoric and policies often piggybacked onto populist sentiments, emphasize nationalism and skepticism toward institutions, and dangerously toward a cavalier treatment of the rule of law. These resonated with voters who felt that previous administrations, Republicans and Democrats alike, had not adequately prioritized American sovereignty and interests. All these are made palatable to a solid minority base of what Hillary Clinton described as "a basket of deplorables" — those who felt left behind by globalization and singled out for imagined injustices by America's elite.

The flip side — where US is bullied

In contrast to Trump's global madman's bully tactics, one country stands as an exception, immune from such treatment by past US governments. I draw heavily from Jeffrey Sachs, a prominent economist and public policy analyst, on the Jewish state's deep influence on US foreign policy, particularly with regard to the Middle East. To contextualize, a brief history. "... We start with the Balfour Declaration of 1917, establishing a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. This was the impetus for Zionism, a nationalist movement affirming the Jewish right to self-determination in its ancient homeland. This became the core concept for the founding document — Mandate for Palestine, based on the 1919 Covenant of the League of Nations... a flood of displaced Jews escaping the European pogroms gave flesh to Israel. ("Israel-Palestinian conflict: Genesis of terrorism," TMT, Oct. 18, 2023.)

Fusion of foreign policies

Sachs' contention is that Israel's interests since its creation have been singularly championed by America. In effect, Israel co-opted American foreign policy. The repercussions can be refracted through the prism of these five constructs:

1. American politicians, especially those with strong ties to the Jewish community, often prioritize Israeli interests in their foreign policy agendas, resulting in a distorted narrative interpreting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

2. The pro-Israel lobby groups fortified with sizable gray cash have inappropriate influence on the elections of American congressmen, senators and political leadership of the Democratic and Republican parties; and therefore, shape US foreign policy aligning with Israel's concerns, overshadowing broader US interests in the region.

Advertisement
3. American military assistance and logistics are part of a broader strategy to support Israeli policies and actions in the region. This reinforces the view that US foreign policy is primarily focused on supporting Israel rather than promoting peace or addressing the concerns of Palestinians.

4. Research indicates that the framing of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in American media portrays heavily Israeli and Jewish viewpoints consistently against the Palestinians, distorting public opinion and, consequently, political decisions. Approaches to peace process dynamics often fail to adequately address Palestinian needs and rights. US policy tends to reinforce the status quo, which favors Israeli settlements and military presence rather than fostering genuine negotiations for a two-state solution.

5. Approaches to peace process dynamics often fail to adequately address Palestinian needs and rights. US policy tends to reinforce the status quo, which favors Israeli settlements and military presence rather than fostering genuine negotiations for a two-state solution.

While this column is being written, Israel just attacked Iran. They are now at each other's throats, exchanging missiles, butchering their citizens. We don't know where this will lead to. Trump refusing to prevent an escalation as complicit instead is pouring hot oil on this conflict, warning Iran to "immediately evacuate Tehran."

The madman theory applies to both. Trump's methods are as dangerous as Netanyahu's. Israel holds America by the balls. Therein lies the conundrum — with two madmen at the helm of their governments — there is no method to their madness.

LAST April 2, 2025, Trump imposed reciprocal tariffs against all US trading partners. This tanked the financial and bond markets, prompting Trump to suspend these tariffs for 90 days. His reason was to give the 100-plus countries the opportunity to "kiss his ass," to negotiate tariff reductions. There are no serious negotiations going on now. Trump's propensity to change his mind on a whim, calling out and negating tariff figures is causing volatile market fluctuations. Wall Street cognoscenti suspect Trump's cronies, alerted to these developments, are making a killing in the markets.

But the Financial Times awarded Trump a new moniker — TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) — a pejorative that describes this pattern of behavior. By early July, the suspension period will expire roiling the markets again, continuing the deadly phase of the trade wars. But by the looks of it, these tariffs in their present context will not be imposed. This is an insanely developed trade strategy that could cause global recession. With Donald the TACO, this is just another bluff.

Bringing manufacturing back

Trump imposed these tariffs ostensibly to liberate America from decades of being ripped off by trading partners, singling out China as the biggest culprit. He declared that these tariffs would incentivize American companies now operating abroad to repatriate manufacturing jobs to America.

Borrowing heavily from Benjamin Norton, editor-in-chief of Geopolitical Economy Report and Professor Richard Wolff of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, their contention is that Trump's attempt to reindustrialize to bring back jobs, by using massive tariffs — his reckless strategy — will not work.

America's dominance in the 1950s, 1960s

America, the lone hegemon, has grown very rich since the end of World War II, claiming the 1950s-1960s as the golden era of the US economy, when one quarter of America's GDP (gross domestic product) came from manufacturing. Today, it has declined to 10 percent — a condition that threatens America's global economic preeminence. To put things in proper perspective, a short review of economic history will trace America's ascendancy in the aftermath of World War II, which may elucidate Trump's erratic obsession with the imposition of tariffs and trade wars since his first term in 2016.

Bretton Woods system

In July 1944, 44 nations gathered at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire in the US, for a conference that established the post-World War II international monetary system, stabilizing exchange rates and promoting growth; among other things it fixed the value of the world's currencies to the US dollar, which itself was tied to gold at $35 per ounce. This made the US dollar effectively the world's primary reserve currency — the standard to which every other currency was pegged. The offshoot from that conference is America's self-appointed role as the "world's policeman" where countries can rely for protection under its military umbrella, and the allies who agree to these arrangements are given access to American consumer markets.

US economic primacy benefited the world economy but more so the American exporters and importers by reducing currency risk. The establishment of the World Bank (WB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) allowed investment opportunities and increased funding, opening new markets for all, particularly those benefiting American businesses. This also enabled America to gain significant leverage in shaping the world's political and international economic policies. But the central theme is that the world, particularly America's allies, became rich — and America, richer.

The flip side

Newly industrializing countries and emerging economies often struggled amid economic conditions that favored bigger and much industrialized economies leading to imbalances. By the late 1960s, the Bretton Woods system caused significant strains worldwide leading to its collapse when the US government under President Nixon in 1971 decoupled the US dollar's convertibility to gold.

Global economic turmoil ensued. After which in the early 1980s, conservative guru President Ronald Reagan with his ideological soulmate UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher ushered in the neoliberal world order that among other things, imposed some direction if not discipline on international trade with three distinct diktats: 1) tariffs were lowered; 2) enable free movement of capital around the world by lowering barriers on investments; 3) currency exchange rates were made flexible — with the US dollar still the world's reserve currency; and 4) America guarantees security for everyone patrolling the major trading routes and the high seas with its fleet. This new world order played smack right into the US-Western cherished concept of democracy and free market principles and far less structured than that which America helped fashion at Bretton Woods; until Trump's appearance in 2016.

While the post World War II era was hailed as Pax Americana, contributing to a period of stability and growth, they also created dependencies and vulnerabilities that would later manifest as economic challenges. Many countries became overly reliant on the US dollar that US economic instability, brought about by its nefarious financial practices, impacted negatively on the world economy — like the 2008 global financial crises centered in the US, triggering the 2008-2009 world economic recession.

US deindustrialization

By the 1980s and 1990s globalization, the expansion of trade and elimination of trade barriers allowed companies to outsource manufacturing to countries with cheaper labor — China, India, South Korea, Vietnam, etc. These countries in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s had cheaper labor, but it is no longer true today.

A case in point is Apple's iPhone. Tim Cook, its president, explains why Apple is still in China despite its wages having gone high up relative to its neighboring countries. The underlying reason is that the Chinese government's socialist system, with a capitalist facade, invested heavily in infrastructure and human development and the training and education necessary to provide the advanced skilled labor necessary to manufacture these goods. By contrast, the US, a free-market capitalist system, has not invested similarly for decades. Apple products require precision, special materials and state-of-the-art tooling and China's pool of tooling engineers is readily available. Vocational expertise is deeply chiseled in the Chinese education system. In America, Trump even threatens to privatize education.

The economic environment of the 1980s, characterized by a focus on free markets, often favored capital mobility over domestic manufacturing. Industrial output declined and the migration of American manufacturing jobs abroad propelled America to shift to a service-oriented economy, such as finance, insurance, health care and technology — which will continue to grow and enlarge as these are profitable to the American capitalist class. But this transition has changed the nature of the American workforce and its role in global trade — no longer oriented toward blue collar manufacturing but toward white collar professionals.

This creeping deindustrialization contributed to economic disparities within the US, leading to job losses hitting the northeastern states of the American "Rust Belt" and midwestern states of the American "Heartland" — Trump's MAGA realm, where outdated factories and technology could not compete with foreign manufacturing.

So, Trump, confronted with the demise of the neoliberal order but incompetent to discern its implications, never developed the working policies implementing actual reindustrialization, embarking instead on a desperate extraneous solution to magically reindustrialize America. In his own words, "We're going to put tariffs on, and US corporations will simply be motivated by the free market and their corporate interests to reindustrialize."

Ignoring all evidence to the contrary, this will not happen!

The Centrist View: Back to Basics

In an era marked by deepening social divides, persistent inequality, and political uncertainty, the Philippines stands at a critical juncture in its national life. Competing ideologies vie for dominance, often pulling the nation toward extremes. Amid this turbulence, a centrist perspective — rooted in the principles of human dignity and human rights — offers a balanced and principled framework for rebuilding trust, safeguarding citizens, and renewing democratic life.

Human Dignity as the Foundation of Rights and Responsibilities

At the core of the centrist vision is the belief that every Filipino possesses inherent human dignity — not conferred by the state, but intrinsic to being human. This dignity forms the moral and legal foundation of all human rights: civil liberties, political participation, and access to essential services such as education, healthcare, and livelihood.

But dignity is more than an entitlement; it is also a responsibility. It calls on individuals not only to claim their own rights but also to respect and uphold the rights of others — in speech, in conduct, and in civic life. The Centrist View affirms that rights and responsibilities are inseparable, and that a just society depends on mutual recognition of each person’s worth.

Human Rights in a Divided Political Landscape

In recent years, human rights in the Philippines have become a flashpoint — celebrated by some as the bedrock of democracy, dismissed by others as a hindrance to order and discipline. The centrist approach resists this false binary.

Instead, it upholds human rights as non-negotiable, especially for the most vulnerable: victims of extrajudicial killings, displaced indigenous communities, and ordinary citizens left behind by corruption and impunity. At the same time, it recognizes the need to contextualize rights within the broader social fabric — considering public safety, poverty, and institutional capacity.

The absolute moral positions of the Church — opposition to abortion, divorce, and same-sex marriage — moral truths which many Filipinos adopt unquestioningly, conflict with human rights discourses or secular principles such as reproductive health, women’s rights, and LGBTQ inclusion. The war on drugs under the Duterte administration was often justified using absolute moral language — portraying drug use as an evil that must be eradicated at all cost. This moral framing enabled EJK and human rights abuses, with limited public resistance due to the perceived moral righteousness of the campaign.

The anti-corruption rhetoric (all corruption is evil) uses moral absolutism (that certain actions are inherently right or wrong regardless of context, consequences, or cultural norms) but the application of justice in the Philippines is frequently selective, exposing the hypocrisy and dangers of absolutism when wielded by those in power. Human rights violations during Martial Law (torture, illegal detentions, censorship) can be judged as morally wrong in absolute terms, regardless of the justifications of national security or economic progress. However, moral relativism is often used to justify or downplay these events, especially by those who benefit from historical revisionism or political dynasties.

The late dictator son’s administration has emphasized technocratic leadership — appointing economic managers, military officials, and political elites into key positions — often sidelining consultative, grassroots-driven policy-making. His seeming focus on stability and economic continuity is reflected in his cabinet choices; still this pragmatic approach is viewed as centralizing authority and downplays participative governance, especially from civil society organizations, marginalized sectors, and opposition voices.

The DepEd and CHED directives to revise or soften the language around martial law abuses reflect a systemic push toward historical revisionism, legitimizing the current administration while erasing past atrocities. In lieu of outright censorship, the present administration uses strategic communication and digital manipulation through troll farms, algorithmic manipulation, and disinformation campaigns, to promote a favorable image. Contrary opinions and criticisms are viewed as “fake news” and attempts to discredit the administration are seen as libelous that merit congressional inquiry, purportedly, in aid of legislation.

The administration exhibits a form of authoritarian pragmatism more subtle than the previous dictatorship but no less concerning in its long-term implications. The challenge for Filipinos today is to critically assess this pragmatism: who benefits, who is silenced, and at what cost is “progress” achieved.

The Centrist View rejects both moral absolutism and authoritarian pragmatism. It seeks to foster a culture in which human rights are not only enshrined in law but also respected in practice, and where governance is accountable, transparent, and humane.

Rebuilding Trust in Institutions and the Rule of Law

The erosion of public trust in the justice system and the prevalence of political patronage have undermined faith in democratic institutions. When laws are applied unequally — when the wealthy and powerful escape accountability while the poor face violence and neglect — human dignity suffers.

A centrist response calls for the revitalization of institutions as a moral imperative:

• A justice system that is impartial, efficient, and accessible to all;
• Security forces that serve the Constitution and the people, not personal or political interests;
• Governance that is participatory, transparent, and responsive — especially to marginalized communities.

Restoring confidence in institutions, in the Centrist View, is not only about efficiency; it is about affirming the dignity of every citizen and the credibility of democracy itself.

Social Justice Without Extremism

Despite economic growth, the Philippines continues to grapple with stark inequality, underdevelopment in rural areas, and persistent conflict in regions such as Mindanao. Politics is downplaying the gains of the Bangsamoro Autonomous region, as changes in policies are manifest in each subsequent administration. These are not just policy failures — they are affronts to human dignity.

The centrist approach to social justice promotes meaningful, targeted reforms:

• Long-term investments in quality education and healthcare as fundamental human rights;
• Genuine land reform and rural development to empower farmers and indigenous peoples;
• Inclusive and decentralized governance, particularly in historically marginalized regions.

Unlike radical ideologies that call for revolution or sweeping overhauls, the Centrist View advocates for gradual, evidence-based reforms that preserve national stability while addressing deep-rooted injustices.

Pluralism and Mutual Respect in a Diverse Nation

The Philippines is a nation of many cultures, faiths, and identities. Respecting human dignity means embracing this diversity, not suppressing it.

The centrist vision affirms that unity can only emerge from mutual respect — not forced conformity.

All Filipinos — regardless of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or social status — have the right to live free from discrimination and violence. Dialogue, rather than dogma, is the foundation of lasting peace and nation-building.

In this spirit, the Centrist View aligns with the universal values of human rights: that every person has the right to live, believe, speak, and participate fully in society — while also contributing to the common good.

Conclusion: A Call for Principled Moderation

The Centrist View in contemporary Philippine society is not a position of passivity or indifference. It is a call for principled moderation — an approach that seeks:

• To place human dignity at the center of policy and public life;
• To uphold human rights not as partisan slogans but as shared moral imperatives;
• To advance nation-building through inclusion, institutional reform, and civic responsibility.

In an age defined by polarization and populism, the Philippines needs a renewed commitment to moral clarity, balanced leadership, and shared humanity. In this vision, human dignity is not merely an abstract ideal — it is a living promise that belongs to every Filipino.