ELECTION 2022 has merely affirmed political dynasties as a fact of the nation's life. Long entrenched in the fringes of local politics, it has burst into center stage with the return of the Marcoses and their complete rehabilitation as the premier Philippine family dynasty. This would not have been possible without the enabling role of President Duterte, founder of a newly minted but full-fledged political dynasty himself. But come June 30, he will be reduced to a titulary, passing the torch to a capable daughter, Vice President Sara.

The merger of these political families may have been foreordained given that the Duterte pere was once a Cabinet member of Ferdinand and perhaps to reciprocate, Duterte gave preferential treatment to Ferdinand's cadaver allowing him a state burial although he has of late turned cold to the son. The fruits of this alliance, however, gave credence to the existence of the mythical loyalty of the Solid North as Ferdinand Makoy's legacy; a template for what the Deegong may have been undertaking for the evolving South as his own legacy.

But the success or failure of the union of the two dominant families may be defined further by how their respective progeny accumulate influence and participate in governance. Competition for power between dominant families is inevitable as only one must remain on top of the totem pole, as it were. Offhand, Marcos has the deeper bench in contrast to the Duterte's shallow team — given the differential role of a VP. But I'm afraid, the political dynasties are here to stay for the next generations.

Marcos-Duterte elected officials

As of this writing the Marcos clan has captured several elective posts. The son of the president-elect, Sandro, will sit as congressman for the first district of Ilocos Norte while Senator Imee's son, Matthew Manotoc, has been proclaimed governor of the province. A cousin-in-law, Cecilia Araneta Marcos, is vice governor. The second district of Ilocos Norte is Congressman Barba's, a relative. Michael Marcos Keon is Laoag city mayor.

In the Visayas, BBM's cousins were reelected: Alfred Romualdez as mayor of Tacloban and Martin as congressman of the first district. He is touted to be the incoming House speaker while his wife Yedda may assume a party-list post. These do not include the number of councilors and board members in the provinces and cities in the North.

In Davao City, Vice President Sara's brother, incumbent vice mayor Sebastian "Baste", succeeded her as city mayor. Her older brother, Paolo "Polong", was reelected first district representative.

Marcos-Duterte Senate

The configuration in the Senate could even be more scandalous. Anti-federalist senator Cynthia Villar, the wife of the former House speaker and erstwhile Senate president Manny Villar would be joined by Duterte's former Public Works secretary, Mark, Cynthia's son.

Alan Cayetano, the Deegong's former Foreign Affairs secretary who also served as House speaker, will join his sister Senator Pia, who has already served two Senate terms and one as congressman. They are children of dynasty founder, the late senator Rene Cayetano of Taguig.

Former President Erap's children, half-brothers JV Ejercito and Jinggoy Estrada, may get into the Senate together. Jinggoy, out on bail on a plunder case, is the son of former senator Loi Estrada.

If former vice president Jojo Binay had successfully gotten a seat, he would have joined his daughter Senator Nancy in the chamber.

Cory EDSA forces and 1987 Constitution

The current realities could be the zenith of a trajectory in Philippine politics that began 36 years ago with the expulsion of Ferdinand Marcos and the subsequent adoption of the 1987 Constitution that was meant to be the anti-thesis of the 1973 Marcos Constitution. Cory Aquino, at the head of a revolutionary government, sought to craft a constitution that was precisely constructed to prevent the recurrence of martial law and the conditions which allowed the emergence of a despot.

Her concept of a new politics of inclusivity mirrored the aspirations of the forces that helped her and the country topple the dictatorship. This was an eclectic group that ran the gamut of the political spectrum, from the leftist and communist groups who were fence-sitters during the EDSA uprising biding their time to take on a more substantial role or capture the uprising after the fact; to the rightist militarists who provided the spark for the breakaway led by a component of the Marcos clique opting for a coup d'état.

These two extremes failed simply because they were unable to champion the aspirations of most of the people in the wide middle of the political spectrum; from the left of center civil society and NGOs and people's organizations (POs) to the right of center business groups, the oligarchs and elites who were disgruntled by Marcos replacing them with his own. The Catholic Church hierarchy provided the thread that stitched these disparate groups together providing a semblance of moral underpinnings. They found their voice in the motley rabble which proved to work well with the masses. This was the "parliament of the streets" who for years symbolized their disgust for a regime and vocal enough to protest with their feet proving to be thorns on the conjugal dictatorship's side.

It was these motley groups populist demands that were ensconced in that constitution, producing instead the systemic dysfunctions, including a multi-party system scattering the seeds of political dynasties in all levels of governance. These effectively destroyed the ideological underpinnings of political parties, reducing them to personality-based political groupings.

Parliamentary govt and party-lists

The original intent of the selected elitist framers of the 1987 Constitution was to shift to a parliamentary form of government from a presidential system. Briefly, parliamentary system is also known as party government," as the political parties have ascendancy over personalities and because of the pivotal role of political parties in parliamentary elections, governance, and public administrations.

A parliament therefore is composed of elected members from the parliamentary districts, plus those chosen on the basis of "proportional representation" by the political party according to the votes each party obtained in the preceding elections.

The members chosen by the political parties were to constitute a certain percentage of the total number of members of parliament (MP) — for example, 30 percent. The political parties vying for power shall ensure that in the 30 percent "party list," the labor, peasant, urban poor, veterans, indigenous people communities, women, youth, differently abled, except the religious sector, are properly represented. These were the Cory forces that were to be the beneficiaries of the EDSA revolution.

Parliamentary government required the creation of strong, vibrant and ideologically differentiated political parties. Elections would involve the choice of political platforms instead of focusing on personalities. Political parties would have to select from among themselves the best and brightest to lead their parties and the country.

But the parliamentary government was not approved, and the framers reverted to the presidential system while inadvertently retaining the "party list." The effect was that any group with a legitimate or contrived issue or gripe, or worse, any political family, could vie for elective posts. This opened the floodgates to relatives of elective officials or temporary dumping grounds for election losers.

Thus, political dynasties and party-lists — both perversions.

MR. President-elect Ferdinand Marcos Jr., congratulations on your triumph! Our people have spoken as various surveys predicted. I wish you well. I also take the liberty of putting on paper some unsolicited suggestions, as you promised a unifying presidency. We have never met. You don't know me, and that is fine by me. I have not voted for you, ever, not even as senator. But you are now my president too. I also never met your father, although I voted for him in 1969.

The Centrist Democrats (CD) sent a memo for then President-elect Duterte, which I thought would be taken up at my first audience with him. He sort of hinted he welcomed ideas, especially from a Davaoeño who worked for Charter change in previous administrations. I was of course flattered by this "non-request" and drafted this two-page memo. This was sent to the Malacañang of the South (Davao City) for his review. I never got a reply to that well-constructed memo and that was that! Looking back, it was perhaps the Deegong's way of dismissing an audience scheduled at an ungodly hour nearing dawn.

Although I have not been asked to do so, I am writing a similar memo to you, sir, but this time publicly in my column. The Centrist Democratic Party (CDP) makes no suggestions on how to run your government. This is your mandate, not ours. No doubt you have a plethora of expert advice from your incoming Cabinet.

These concerns, as we see fit, have persisted for decades. Our treatise is that they are consequences of the systemic anomalies perpetuated by the unitary-presidential system and protected through the perversion of the Philippine constitutions. And if they contradict your appreciation of these problems, we hope this will precipitate a clash of ideas which could only redound to the benefit of the Filipinos.

But first, my credentials. I have been anti-Marcos since shortly before your father declared martial law. There were many of us then, but time has decimated our ranks and we are a dying breed. Those whose memories and experiences were defined by your father's despotic regime are now in the minority. Perhaps this is only fitting as your administration should only be defined by your own actuations — nothing more.

The Yellow Peril and 1987 Constitution

I worked with President Cory's government after the EDSA People Power Revolution terminated your father's regime. I am an original supporter of the Yellow color — before her son, President Benigno Aquino 3rd, co-opted and perverted the yellow symbolisms. I never met PNoy himself though I knew of him as a dilettante uninterested in the free tutorials in governance available to him as the unico hijo of a mother-president and heir to a storied political family.

My main tiff with PNoy was never personal but my disillusionment with the son of my former boss, was gradual, from his leadership flaws in the handling of crises that defined his administration: the Luneta hostage fiasco of August 2010; to Typhoon "Yolanda" (Haiyan), the most powerful storm that hit the country in November 2013 devastating swaths of the Visayas region; to his personal motivations behind the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona where senators were bribed P50 million each to have him removed; to the Mamasapano incident in June of 2015 that caused the death of 44 elite SAF troops.

His economic achievements during his term, which could be considered as better than that of his predecessors, failed to mitigate these catastrophes. But the single factor that for me broke the camel's back was his refusal to consider systemic changes that were the curse of good governance, for decades and ensconced by his mother's elite cohorts in her 1987 Constitution with a pompous declaration that "not a comma of the 1987 Constitution will be changed."

As a backgrounder, the late Professor Jose Abueva and I were designated by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as chairmen respectively of the 2005 Consultative Commission (ConCom) and the 2006 Advocacy Commission (AdCom) tasked to recommend revisions to the 1987 Constitution. We sought to shift the Philippines from a unitary-presidential form to a parliamentary-federal system, while striking out the anti-foreign direct investments (FDI) provisions.

Centrist Democrats and the 4 pillars

Let me introduce my group to you, sir. We are adherents of CD ideals, and we situate ourselves within the wide center of the political spectrum with political ideologies spilling toward the center-left and center-right. I am a member of the CDP. Mindanao congressman and Deputy House Speaker Rufus Rodriguez is our party president. My party did not support you. But we supported Vice President Leni Robredo and Vice President-elect Sara Duterte. I infer from your statements that we share common cause with some important advocacies. This is the reason why I am writing you this memo. Unless systemic changes are applied to our current concepts and modes of governance, the Philippines will perpetually be condemned to stark poverty, corruption and social injustices — which you declared you wanted eradicated.

The following are excerpts from our literature.

"Human dignity is the core value of Centrist Democracy. We hold therefore that political, economic, and social order must be logically designed that the dignity of each person is promoted and enriched. Freedom is a prerequisite upon which human dignity is enhanced. Self-determination by each individual, an essential component, is the impetus for collective expression towards the development of a just society; and for society to prosper, it must make available to each individual the needed ingredients for a decent life.

"Complimentary to this, Centrist Democracy therefore embraces these essential sets of doctrines which we call the four pillars that support this core value: 1) We must strive to create a truly functioning democracy and the rule of law; 2) We must endeavor to establish a thriving social market economy (SOME), the reliance on free markets imbued with social responsibility; 3) We must work for the adoption and practice of subsidiarity in all structures of government and the principles of decentralization leading towards an eventual Federal Republic of the Philippines; and 4) We must help build up strong and sustainable political parties."

You ran under your clarion call for unity. By this we assume that you intend to bring us all together after years of polarization, disarray and acrimony. Your message resonated with the Filipino as reflected in the majority votes – unprecedented since you father's terms in 1965 and 1969. We glean from your pronouncements that you are now setting in process your priority programs, foremost of which is to end the vestiges of the pandemic which your predecessor has started to surmount but at a great cost to the country's economy. No doubt the economic team you are forming will find ways to get us through these difficulties setting the path towards recovery and eventual gains, expansion and sustainability.

Meantime we Centrist Democrats continue to fashion our role in a dynamic manner. For a vibrant democracy to flourish, we must remain critical to your government as a legitimate opposition.

For your consideration, sir.

BY Easter, when Christ has risen, the Bongbong may have caused the Marcos name to also rise again. I may be damned for blasphemy — but what the hell! The opposition was given the opportunity in the last two months to unite and create a momentum to prevent a Marcos from rising from the dead. This Easter Sunday, three oppositionist candidates stopped the impetus dead on its tracks. And fittingly for the Lenten season, one among them is someone's mole. A kiss of death by a Judas Iskoriot! It now appears that the fragmented opposition is comatose. BBM with his message of unity — fake or not — has won the day. So, congratulations to the Marcos family. You are back!

The Philippine political ecosystem will drastically change with BBM at the helm. He will reign as our president, but can he rule? To do that, he will need the opposition and those elected to flock to his side. This is a no-brainer as in the patronage system of Philippine politics, the opportunistic elected officials always gravitate to the power center — the presidency. It is the nature of the beast as what happened to the Deegong when opportunistic politicians swamped his adopted PDP-Laban — owned it then transformed it to a caricature of a once formidable ideological party, now broken with its members waiting to suck up to the next patron.

This structural defect will persist for as long as no corrected measures are applied. On the other hand, Marcos must magnanimously engage the anti-Marcos remnants and Filipino constituencies, listening in to their varied demands, longings and aspirations, unfulfilled for the past 36 years since his father was booted out.

The Marcos years

I was not eligible to vote in 1965 for Marcos' first term. I campaigned hard for Raul Manglapus against Makoy and President Dadong Macapagal. Marcos did well in his first term, pursuing aggressive infrastructure and agricultural development programs and putting in his Cabinet world-class technocrats. He tried to break the centuries-old hold of the landowning ruling class on the economy by systematically cultivating his own group of entrepreneurs and industrialists. He made war with the communists. The Philippine economic trajectory was on the way up.

I campaigned for Makoy and voted for him for his second term in 1969 — a first-time presidential voter at 24 years old. But the very people he elevated to the pinnacles of industries assumed upon themselves the combined role of technocrats and capitalists — and with his blessing allowed the formation of monopolies within these industries. In lieu of the old oligarchy, he created his own — a new breed of cronies and bureaucrat capitalists — fueled by "behest loans" to expand their turf. Gradually the rapacious nature of the man began to emerge, complemented by his alluring political wife Imelda. This organized plunder sucked out the blood of the Filipinos down to the bone marrow. Thus began the descent on a slippery slope toward perdition. I have been anti-Marcos from then on.

The first to third quarter storms were raging. Wanting to extend his term, Marcos perverted the 1971 Constitutional Convention. He declared martial law in September and by December a draft was submitted to Marcos. This was revised further and ratified by the Filipinos in a sham show of hands — subsequently proclaimed as the 1973 Marcos Constitution, extending his term by changing the government to a parliamentary system with him as president. He had Cesar Virata appointed as prime minister with a compliant unicameral Batasang Pambansa. But in fact, he ruled by decree reducing Virata to the proverbial "tawo-tawo sa humayan" (a figurehead).

After the fall

The EDSA People Power ending the Marcos era, to the subsequent post-Cory regimes witnessed the vilification of Marcos as a matter of course. The tragedy was that the Cory administration and the succeeding ones never did present themselves as the harbingers of change; not even the assumption to power of Cory's son — who should never have been allowed to lead our people in the first place. This continued demonization couldn't upend the residual affection shown by Ilocanos of the north from whence a political comeback was orchestrated. The Marcos rehabilitation was complete with the burial of Makoy at the Libingan and mga Bayani; the political strategy of the Deegong as payback for the Marcos support for his presidency in 2016 and the coming midterm elections of 2018. But today, unable to get his way by having his independent-minded daughter Sara run for president — a sure winner to the Deegong's mind — he turned around and spat at the Marcos son. A madman's act!

A new narrative

My generation and the governments we supported have bungled their way these past 36 years — from Cory to FVR to Erap to GMA to PNoy and to the Deegong. It was they who paradoxically collectively primed the stage for the return of the prodigal son!

And he is supported — if the numbers are true — by a majority of the Filipinos, many of whom have no inkling whatsoever of life under a dictatorship. And who never knew nor cared about Marcos the father — but could relate with Marcos the son. We the sexagenarians and septuagenarians of the Baby Boomers and Generation X along with the Yellow crowd of PNoy have utterly failed. With their support for the Bongbong, let the millennials and the Generation Z do their thing — and if necessary, allow them to fail if they must.

A tidal wave?

"There is a tide in the affairs of men. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune" – Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. Awaiting this tide, we anti-Marcos, those who lived under the tumultuous days of Ferdinand Makoy and the conjugal dictatorship are a dying breed, ravaged by time, the onslaught of the pandemic and pure ennui. Towards the end of our lives and in the face of this new political regime, we need to dichotomize our emotional antecedents from the current realities, our hatred for a ghost of the father and everything he stood for that our sad experiences have imposed on us. Admittedly, it's hard to reconcile the dictum "you can't visit the sins of the father upon the child." I will not even attempt to ask the Bongbong to apologize for the father. Let him navigate his own path.

But we should not wish him to fail. His failure is the country's too. But we should never allow him license. Filipinos understand only too well the filial responsibility to cleanse and honor the memory of his father. But central to this cleansing process is for the son to do good by the Filipino, as the president for all. Avowals that martial law and what his father did was good are of no consequence, prone to open old wounds. He has to prove it by his deeds. Atonement as demanded by the anti-Marcos may not be appropriate too — as a son must cling to the fiction that a father is seldom wrong. But he was. The son's victory may have partially exculpated the father's sins.

But blind Lady Justice may still have her say!

NINETEEN days to the day of reckoning, BBM is holding his own. The Teflon boy is comfortably biding his time mouthing the same message that resonated with the tired electorate. "Time to Unite for the country" — and the devil takes the hindmost. Meantime his minions have been spreading manure measure for measure — plunging lately to a new low hitting Aika, Leni's daughter with a fake pornographic muck. Perhaps in retaliation for hitting BBM's wife Liza on a spliced — "I'm very New York — my way or the highway" video clip, which went viral.

With BBM's comfortable lead, the opposition — that is, everyone else against Marcos — is panicking; a "fight or flight response" triggered by a release of political hormones is most welcome at this late date. In this case, fleeing from the other moribund wannabees with surveys nailed to the low.04 to 3 percent, who by now should be categorized as nuisance candidates. The three major ones lagging behind — Isko, Manny and Ping — have numbers that even if added to Leni's won't still carry the latter to the top. But a case can be made for the three withdrawing in favor of Leni at this late date, as a "moral statement," creating a momentum, inducing people to think that the best option for this presidential election to stop a Marcos is to unite behind Leni. But will it?

The three stooges

My apologies to Moe, Curly and Larry, but Isko, Manny and Ping are performing like the originals with nary a shred of comedy but provoking instead a looming tragedy. Invited to form a united front to fight BBM and to avert an imminent debacle, only Leni — self-serving as it were — agreed, knowing perhaps she would be the logical choice. And indeed, she is. The last two months saw the three stooges' numbers comatose — except perhaps for Isko. But the latest surveys show the three are running behind Leni and the gap is widening, resulting in defections from their camps. In late March, Ping Lacson was dropped by his own party — a slap to his face. I like Ping, but what Alvarez and his own political party did to him was a clear sign that he must give up. He's down to 4 percent.

Isko's "Ikaw Muna" and "Nais Ko" umbrella campaigners led by Tim Orbos have defected in droves to Leni. Isko's groups from the Visayas and Zamboanga chapters have likewise decided to shift to Leni.

Manny with his catatonic 7 percent is awaiting divine intervention before he quits. Hasn't he heard that the "appointed son of God" has already bet his kingdom on BBM?

Numbers don't lie — but can change

Going back in time, comparing presidential surveys at approximately a month or less before the elections would give us an insight into the expected outcome. In 1992, in a Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey, Fidel Ramos (FVR) was tied at 18 percent with Miriam Santiago in a field of six presidential candidates. FVR eventually won with 28.58 percent and Miriam 19.72 percent. She cried that she was cheated.

In 1998, Erap Estrada kept his lead a month before the May 11 elections, doubling that of Speaker Joe de Venecia who eventually lost at 15.87 percent against Erap's 39.86 percent.

Pulse Asia in 2004 had Fernando Poe Jr. leading in February 8 vs GMA 35-33 percent; they were even on February 20, at 32 percent; and GMA overtaking Poe 34-31 percent on April 4; and 37-31 percent a week before elections. Fernando Poe claimed he was cheated.

In 2010 in a field of nine candidates, President PNoy led all the way, with Manny Villar and Joseph Estrada fighting it out for second place.

In 2016 in a field of five presidentiables, the comparative four-month figures before the May election were volatile between Mar Roxas and Duterte with the last week before the election stabilizing with the eventual winner, Duterte 33 percent to 22 percent.

This election season's comparative figures established early BBM's lead over Leni hovering between 50++ to Leni's high teens and low 30s. The three stooges, Pacquaio, Isko and Ping, couldn't break the 20 percent combined levels.

Today BBM is on track to a majority win — if the numbers hold till May 9. But then here comes the kuro-kuro being whispered among the cognoscenti.

What if?

Duterte so far has been moping, wasting away his lame duck period, not oblivious but irrelevant to the unfolding drama. But even a lame duck in some weird and peculiar way can still influence this election's outcome. But he has to make his move now. By his silence and with his daughter as BBM's VP, Duterte is in effect tolerating BBM. But to openly endorse a "kawatan, a weak leader and a cocaine user" (his words), he will look foolish. For an alpha male this turnaround, if ever, will mark him as an idiot for life.

His allowing his PDP-Laban faction to endorse BBM-Sara and not Manny Pacquaio shows where his sympathies lie. I'm sure Marcos would welcome his endorsement, but at this point — "para que"? He has a humongous lead and "suma total," BBM doesn't really need him.

But what if the Deegong wants to show the world that he is no lame duck and still can influence the course of Philippine political history? Endorse Leni, now! Wild speculation perhaps but this will be a real game changer and put fear in the heart of the Marcoses. A long shot perhaps but one that will create a positive momentum for the Kakampinks.

So, what has he got to lose? Sara is going to win hands-down anyway — so his legacy, for whatever it's worth, is protected. Leni as president doesn't have a political dynasty of her own — unlike Sara Duterte who has in her wake, Paolo, Baste and Bong Go, the surrogate Duterte. Thus, the Duterte dynasty will live on — writing finis to the Marcos clan.

Conspiracy theory

But there are other kuro-kuro going around — particularly among the desperados wanting to prevent a Marcos return to power. This total hatred for the Makoy and his martial law regime has so permeated Philippine politics, poisoning the election process itself, encouraging weirdos to proffer their ten cents' worth. Among the compelling ones, particularly from the DDS and fist-bumping crowd, is that the Deegong is really in control and orchestrating the whole scenario allowing the election to go its course.

BBM will win the election but with the help of the structure put in place by the master strategist Duterte beforehand — BBM will be disqualified immediately after his swearing in. And daughter Sara steps up to take over. Not before President-elect BBM's swearing in date — as BBM's disqualification will trigger Leni's ascendancy. Beautiful scenario! And a stupid one!

Such despair is understandable, particularly from the remnants of the original Yellow Army (this columnist not excepted) plus the post-Cory descendants that have failed to erase the Marcoses from the Ilocanos and now a vast number of Filipinos' affections; and despite more than three decades of vilification and demonizing of the Marcoses — they will be back.

So, if these weird scenarios do not pan out, be prepared for a new and different narrative.

A MONTH to election day last week, The Manila Times came out with a screaming headline, "Marcos expected to rake in 36M votes." This would translate to over 56 percent of eligible Filipino voters, a clear majority comparable to Ferdinand Makoy in 1986, where he garnered 53.62 percent and Cory 46.10 percent. Marred by massive electoral fraud exposed by the walk-out of 30 Comelec poll computer technicians, this triggered mammoth protests resulting in the booting out of the dictator from power. Now the son, if the figures hold, may reprise Makoy's win for his second term in 1969, garnering 61.47 percent over Sergio Osmeña Jr.'s 38.51 percent. After that year, Marcos declared martial law. And the subsequent referenda — not elections — were simply "Yes and No" votes for Makoy; garnering "Yes" 90.67 percent in 1973 and 89.27 percent in 1977. Walang kalabanlaban!

Released by Pulse Asia, three other pollsters had equivalent results with their own polls published earlier. Social Weather Stations (SWS) came out in early February, placing Marcos in the lead with 50 percent; PUBLiCUS Asia, (March 30 to April 6) BBM 56 percent, Leni 23 percent, Isko 9 percent. OCTA, February 12 to 17, BBM 55 percent, Leni 15 percent, Isko11 percent.

These pollsters came out with similar figures establishing a "trend" — or whatever appropriate syntax one uses to avoid disturbing partisan sensibilities. Pollsters claim to be non-partisans — but we know better — advancing a mantra that a poll is simply a snapshot of a particular time-period and therefore has no bearing on the next "photograph." But to the partisans of BBM who is leading — this is it!

For the Leni Kakampinks, they see a "trend" of a 9 percentage points gained from the last polling period with BBM losing 4 percent — or an effective net gain of 13 percent — raising excitement among the true believers that this captures the so-called nationwide surge seen on the tumultuous pink crowds during rallies, thus — "this is it"!

I am not aware however that in the group of Isko, Manny and Ping — they can also say — confidently, though tongue-in-cheek, that indeed, "this is it!

Travails of pollsters

I never had the pleasure of meeting any of the three leading presidentiables, but this doesn't really matter. It is they who are being scrutinized, placed under a political microscope with voters now making up their minds. I too have formed mine. I will not vote for any of them. In fact, I will not vote at all. I will be in America gracing my surrogate daughter Justine May's wedding — family obligation trumping my civic responsibility.

But having observed for decades Philippine election circuses and subsequent results, I have become jaded and very cynical of the capabilities of whoever wins to effect the changes my advocacies demand — not Marcos, not Robredo and not Moreno.

But I have confidence in surveys reflecting sentiments captured at the time the polls were made — particularly if the four major pollsters show comparable results. Unless these four collude to push for a certain candidate. But I doubt it. Polling is a superb statistical tool where technology has improved over the decades and has reached a certain sophistication producing better accuracy. The four pollsters cited above may have captured a "photograph of a particular period in time" — showing a certain kind of trend — careful not to peremptorily establish one. Offhand, the four agree that Marcos is leading the polls and if sustained, he could be President Bongbong on May 9, 2022.

I can hear partisan dissenting voices, calling the pollsters all sorts of names. In the Philippines and elsewhere, bad news and contrarian polling results are seldom accepted at face value. Politicians and their supporters have accused survey firms of being politically biased when these results are unfavorable to their side. In the olden days harbinger of bad news were disposed of, their heads or tongues cut off. Today, they are vilified.

"In 2010, Sen. Richard Gordon sued Pulse Asia and Social Weather Stations...in connection with his poor showing in pre-election surveys in which he was listed as a candidate for president. Gordon explained that 'surveys serve no public purpose except to rob the people of their right to be able to engage in a mental exercise where they can gauge their candidate's capability. It is mental conditioning in no uncertain terms.'...During the actual presidential elections, Gordon received 1.39 percent of the vote, even less than the 2 percent the pre-election surveys had indicated." (Wikipedia)

But poll results can be mystifying. Our lame-duck president has been maintaining high ratings in the surveys for the past six years. Duterte's partisans declare that this reflects the President's superb handling of the ship of state, his accomplishments, especially his Build, Build, Build projects, his pro-poor "ayuda," his populist policies, and his style of leadership — giving him an unprecedented approval rating never seen among the presidents before him. In short, his bond with his constituency has been highly emotional and stable over the years as gleaned from the DDS and the fist-bumping hordes' behavior — despite contrary arguments from the partisans. But I leave this to later historians to ponder.

Bongbong Marcos (BBM)

But an interesting phenomenon is the rise of BBM since his loss to VP Leni. From an actual deficit of a few hundred thousand to the current survey gap of a few millions, his minions continue to maintain that BBM was cheated in 2016. Today, his numbers continue to rise despite the mud thrown his way by his presidential rivals, particularly VP Leni's camp, caused no doubt by some of his indiscretions in the past, his outright lies, his less than stellar performance as an elective official, and the overall perception that he refuses to debate with the other presidentiables fearing exposing himself as dumb — the same accusation his partisans throw at VP Leni. Again, his partisans' retort is, "Why risk a debate when he is already leading in the polls. There's no advantage for him in that venue?"

He failed to get a college degree from Oxford University in England and should have been expelled were it not for Imelda pulling strings. BBM hinted that he got a degree — although it was known that he lived a life of a dilettante. So what! his partisans retort. So what, indeed!

He failed to pay his income taxes for several years and therefore criminally liable with a conviction meted out by the courts. Even the Deegong calls him "a weak leader, a spoiled child, a 'kawatan' — hinting of cocaine use!"

These are just some of the negatives hurled at the man. And his response! Ignore all these and take the high road. Cloak oneself with motherhood statements and stake his candidacy on strong positive unifying values. Perhaps this will resonate with the voters tired of all the muck and dirt. As a respected Manila Times columnist Yen Makabenta wrote: "The negative campaign that has been desperately mounted to stop another Marcos from entering Malacañang appears to be generating the unintended effect of making BBM inevitable."

And if Bongbong ascends the throne on May 9 — with a majority, not a plurality — then perhaps his affirmative message of unification resonated across only too well.

And good luck to us all!

First of a series

LAST week, candidates started campaigning for 18,000 local elective positions. The Commission on Elections (Comelec) came out with some interesting tidbits. Eight hundred forty-five (4.7 percent) are running unopposed. But at the Congress, three-fourths of whom are members of political dynasties, 39 (15 percent) of 253 seats are unchallenged. This is a measure of how traditional politics permeate our system of governance. In the presidential derby, political realignments are currently volatile and disquieting.

First off, PRRD's PDP-Laban faction finally endorsed Marcos as "the candidate whose vision of governance is most aligned with the party's 11-point agenda...." Sen. Manny Pacquiao, presidential standard-bearer of the PDP-Laban Pimentel faction retorted, "...PDP-Laban members backing Marcos are stupid trapos... this party was formed to fight the rule of Ferdinand Marcos...." Here is a kettle calling the pot black — as Manny himself was a member of six or seven other political parties before being drafted into PDP-Laban. Manny is also fixated on the Marcos père — perfunctorily visiting onto the son the sins of the father. Speculation is rife that Duterte himself will eventually endorse BBM, which could really be awkward as he has been labeling BBM and the Marcoses as "mga kawatan."

Lately, the political circus is building up toward fever pitch with dancing beasts and clowns front and center. A consortia of family members, sycophants and political hacks bound purely by prurient interest that pass for political parties are now scouting for the next patron they can suck up to once the lame duck President Duterte exits the scene.

Antecedents

To understand the Philippines' convoluted politics, a brief description on how our unitary-presidential system breeds and nurtures tradpols impacting on our political party system. In this system, the president runs supreme where manna flows for the next six years. Presidential elections are merely opportunities for these unscrupulous politicians, power players and their oligarchic allies to sell their souls to the eventual winner. Political parties gamble on the most probable victor — in this case, BBM or Leni. Whoever wins, the early bird gets to partake of the early worms — political gravy galore. This system causes candidates and future legislators to flock to the party of the president, expecting entitlements contravening the role of political parties as institutions for legitimate political reforms.

Almost all of the political parties in the Philippines are structured in a manner that hew close to the centuries-old patronage system, with few exceptions. The top dog, customarily the funder, calls the shots. Allies and subalterns man critical committees. Party platforms are simply lifted from Wikipedia, passing them off as strategy for governance.

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 — googled political doctrines. Their agenda is predictably directed toward the preservation of 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 interest, thus perpetuating the existing flawed political institutions.

Ingenious party realignments

The National Unity Party (NUP) was a breakaway of the Lakas-Kampi CMD of President GMA in 2010 at the twilight of her patronage. NUP subsequently joined PNoy's coalition in the 2013 elections while other members allied themselves with the other leading party — the United Nationalist Alliance (UNA), founded by Vice President Jojo Binay, its standard-bearer. By 2016, the NUP became part of the PDP Laban-led Duterte coalition. Today, a lame duck Duterte simply awaits the next padrino anointed come May 9. The NUP, believed to be funded by oligarch Ricky Razon, is now betting on BBM-Sara.

Partido Reporma's recent decision to drop their chairman and presidential standard bearer, Ping Lacson, could be seen as a tragic turn of events but really just reflects the state of our politics and pseudo-political parties. The real power is former House speaker Pantaleon "Bebot" Alvarez who wiped out Sara Duterte's regional political party Hugpong ng Pagbabago in Davao del Norte and Davao de Oro, along with her compatriots, Tony Boy Floirendo of the oligarchic clan and the del Rosarios who owned the governorship of Davao del Norte for decades. No love lost between Sara and Bebot, whom the former caused the latter's loss of the speakership, replacing him with GMA — there was no way Bebot could support the BBM-Sara ticket. As they say — all politics are local. And dirty and duplicitous!

But Alvarez's statements twisting the knife on Ping Lacson needs to be read in full as a classic nauseating example not only of his person, his political party but also reflecting what is wrong with politics in the country. "Partido Reporma has always sought to represent the better ideals in politics, mindful of the limitations imposed by a far from perfect world, but faithful to the aim of attaining good governance — through reform — as its constant guiding north star. xxx... There is no doubt that, after a thorough search, we found a once in a generation candidate, a rare gem (Lacson) who devoted his entire life to exceptional public service, risked life, and limb for his countrymen, cleaned the ranks of the police force when he led that institution, fought against corruption, and advocated consistently and credibly for good governance." Now he speaks with forked tongue and sings hosannas to Leni whom he once described as "dumb and a traitor," calling for her impeachment.

There are other political parties waiting on the sidelines trying to divine whom the political gods will favor. One of the older ones is the Nacionalista Party (NP), funded by the real estate magnate Manny Villar who propelled wife Cynthia to number one winning senator in the elections of 2013, with his son conveniently ensconced as secretary of the Department of Public Works (DPWH) and Highways in 2016 — now also running for senator.

Another oligarch-funded party is the Nationalist People's Coalition (NPC). It was founded as a breakaway of the NP adopting Danding Cojuangco for his presidential run in 1992. Danding's protegee and now head of his own conglomerate, Ramon Ang, funds NPC. They have not indicated their preference yet but like the Iglesia ni Kristo (INK), they make a last-minute endorsement on the winning candidate.

All these political parties decide on supporting the patron that best serves their own self-interest with nary a consideration for the welfare of the citizenry. They may be partisans on candidates running for office. But once the victor emerges, they flock to his banner — thus continuing the traditional political practices in the country. Unless this dysfunctional system is changed, the country will not move forward. But there are political parties that may prove to be different from the herd. These are those that go through the pain of their decision-making process and thus take responsibility for their choices.

Next week: The Centrist Democratic Party (CDP), et al.

LESS than 50 days from now, the PRRD regime will have come to pass. I have been critical of many of the President's policies and acts of commission and omission. For one, he should have taken proactive steps to resolve an ethical dilemma on the Pharmally scandal — after his people, evidently with his acquiescence, were caught with their hands in the cookie jar. His response instead was to double down. But I have also praised him for his accomplishments. He will leave behind much needed infrastructure projects. His Build, Build, Build program is vital to the economy's future take-off. Although it has cost our government an arm and a leg in the light of the pandemic that ravaged us economically, still, these investments will yield positive results for the next generations, far into the future. But we will leave it to history to pass final judgment on his six-year watch.

Failed political reforms

PRRD understood fully well the ideological profile of the PDP-Laban, the left of center political party that adopted him, and that of the Centrist Democrats (CDs) that supported him. That the roots of the problems of poverty, corruption, impunity and injustice which have plagued Philippine society for generations are traceable to systemic anomalies in governance. That some of the solutions are to be found in political reforms and systemic overhaul of a dysfunctional unitary government. Centralized authority and decision making have to be dispersed to the periphery where the people most affected are best allowed to solve their own problems as seen in their best lights.

He allowed baby steps with the creation of the BARMM — which was to be the template of an eventual federal government. He envisioned a parliamentary government, requiring the revision of the 1987 Constitution. Too bad, he dropped the ball on the more important promises he made during his candidacy. Worse, he presided over the PDP-Laban's messy political suicide — not even an honorable hara-kiri.

Lessons learned

A critical lesson learned from the Deegong's regime is that charisma and a proclivity to intermittently display alpha-male behavior dear to the Filipino masses passing off as a display of "political will" is not enough. A president needs to build a real constituency with his various authorizing environment, particularly the executive's co-equal branch, and play along with the real power behind the systemic changes — starting with the revision of an anomalous constitution. This is the Senate's prerogative. He did inordinately well installing his sycophants in the Senate — PDP-Laban senators imbued with the language of political reforms — Go, Bato and Tolentino, along with Pimentel, scion of the party founder. But it was too late in the day to change the Constitution. Even his Charter Change Consultative Committee (2018 ConCom) peopled by renowned constitutionalists, the likes of Reynato Puno, Nene Pimentel, Antonio Nachura and Reuben Canoy, among others, didn't make a dent with a Senate bent on preserving its prerogatives.

It is therefore imperative for the voters this time around to install not only a president who would go for structural reforms but also senators who will put into law the process of revising the 1987 Constitution. Currently, the three leading presidential candidates (by latest trending polls) are Bongbong Marcos (BBM), Leni Robredo and Isko Moreno. BBM and Leni both professed to push for the changes in the 1987 Constitution but are not clear on the exact formula on the "what and how." BBM's priority is to clear and rehabilitate the Marcos name. Charter revisions is not a priority for him. Many speculate that he will indulge in "historical revisionism" to present an alternative narrative to what the five administrations post-Ferdinand had proffered.

On the other hand, Leni's antecedents and core base are the remnants of the Liberal Party whose prominent actor professed from the very start in 2010 that not one word of his mother's constitution be altered. Leni herself is ambivalent. Both BBM and Leni have yet to present in no uncertain terms a road map on how to bring about political-economic-social reforms short of motherhood statements.

Isko coming in third seems to be the candidate who understands the need for Charter revisions and has a vision for the country on systemic changes which include a federal-parliamentary government in lieu of a unitary-presidential one and institutionalization of political parties, strongly condemning the perverted party-lists.

What needs to be revised

I have been writing in my columns ad nauseam on what needs to be changed. With the required smattering of motherhood statements, I reprint the Centrist Democrat's (CD) credo (please visit our website www.cdpi.asia). A preamble sets the tone for the CD positions; our core value of human dignity, guided by principles of Christian and Muslim social teachings.

"Political, economic and social order must be so logically designed that the dignity of each person is protected and promoted. An atmosphere of freedom is a prerequisite upon which human dignity is enhanced. Self-determination by everyone, an essential component, is the impetus for collective expression toward the development of a just society."

"To be more specific the guiding principles are simple: 1) a strict adherence to democracy and the rule of law; 2) a parliamentary government based on program-oriented political parties; 3) a decentralized state structure with regional autonomy and local self-government, leading towards federalism; and 4) a 'social market economy' with a well-functioning open market, protected by a strong state."

Current Senate profile

If they adhere to their party's positions the four PDP-Laban senators (Go, Bato, Tolentino and Pimentel) could provide the backbone for Charter revisions, joined by Imee Marcos, Sonny Angara, Lito Lapid, Pia Cayetano and Bong Revilla.

This bloc going for Charter revisions already comprises three-fourths of the incumbents; with Cynthia Villar whose vehemence against federalism and Charter revisions are well documented, joined by Grace Poe and Nancy Binay. But as always among traditional politicians, negotiations and deal-making are a legitimate part of lawmaking although the sordid pragmatic bartering of their beliefs and integrity are a stock in trade. It is thus incumbent upon the voters who are adherents of systemic changes in the government structures to recalibrate their assessment of their favorite senatorial candidates. We need the 19th Congress to pass laws calling for a constitutional convention for the revision of the 1987 Constitution.

2022 senatoriables

Of the current crop of 20 Senate bets, many of whom are tradpols trending up in various polls, eight carry advocacies antithetical to the CD position. Among these are Loren Legarda, Alan Cayetano, Chiz Escudero, Jojo Binay, Win Gatchalian, Joel Villanueva, Herbert Bautista and Dick Gordon.

Those whose advocacies are congruent with Charter change and Centrist Democratic positions are four: Migs Zubiri, Robin Padilla, Risa Hontiveros and Gibo Teodoro.

The remaining eight on the list are either ambivalent or uninterested in such issues. Among these are Raffy Tulfo, Mark Villar, Gringo Honasan, Jinggoy Estrada and half-brother JV Ejercito, Antonio Trillanes 4th, Guillermo Eleazar, and Harry Roque Jr.

This columnist is in no way endorsing or disparaging these candidates. In the next columns, I will be describing in depth their positions relevant to my advocacies. Similarly, I ask readers to email me their preferences and why.

TODAY marks the 20th day of the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. 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 Odessa 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. More Japanese were killed from the two atomic bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that ended the war.

These two scenarios are different for both countries — America in 1945 and Ukraine in 2022 — yet paradoxically similar. America didn't want American boys to die in hordes by invading the Japanese homeland. US forces know only too well the resolve of a desperate people when American blood flowed, and precious lives wasted in what was to be considered pyrrhic victories for American forces in Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The iconic image of the Marines raising the American flag in the summit of Mount Suribachi belies the fact that America did not have the stomach for 7,000 Americans dead and another 20,000 wounded out of 70,000 who fought for 36 days. True, the Japanese were annihilated almost to a man with only a handful alive against the 21,000 Japanese dead. But the price of American victories was unacceptable. Thus, the firebombing and the atomic bombs

In contrast, 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 in play. But nuclear war will not happen. Putin understands only too well the theory of mutual assured destruction (MAD). American resolve is no match for Putin's when this war is being waged at Russia's borders. Russia will win. America, true to its democratic principles and concepts of freedom, will allow the blood of Ukraine and Russia to flow for the very concepts America holds dear.

Antecedents

John Mearsheimer, an American political scientist, is featured in a widely distributed video clip examining the antecedents of the Ukraine question. He argues that Ukraine was an unmitigated disaster. To understand its nature, it is necessary to examine the facts establishing who were responsible for this debacle. His disturbing but logical conclusions negate the conventional wisdom that Putin and Russia bear primary responsibility. The United States and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are to blame for this disaster, inferring from a series of moves which the alliance executed from the time the USSR was dissolved in the early 1990s. (Please refer to my TMT column of March 9, 2022.)

The US and NATO's behavior were singularly directed toward winning the Cold War, a period of geopolitical tension after WW2 principally between the United States and the USSR. This era saw the emergence of communism competing with liberal capitalism for world hegemony. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the liberal capitalist Western countries arrogated upon themselves the entitlements of the victors. NATO, formed to provide collective security against the Soviet Union, was free to expand outside its original sphere of influence, encroaching upon the old members of the Warsaw Pact, the military alliance of the USSR and its satellite states which subsequently folded in 1991.

NATO initiatives on Ukraine

But in April 2006, after having successfully recruited some old Warsaw Pact members to NATO, its three-prong approach to expand NATO became very clear. The first was to integrate Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, subsequently into the European Union and eventually converting them to pro-Western liberal democracies, putting in place the effects of the Orange Revolution.

The Orange Revolution was a series of daily protests, strikes and civil disobedience in Ukraine running for three months in the autumn and winter of 2004-2005 following the presidential election marred by massive corruption, voter intimidation and electoral fraud. The votes were rigged by government authorities in favor of Soviet-backed President Viktor Yanukovych. The Supreme Court annulled the election. In a run-off, Viktor Yushchenko, perceived to be sympathetic to the West, won.

Putin's line in the sand

Soviet influence was unraveling. A pro-American Ukraine at Russia's border was unacceptable. Yet the Western alliances proceeded in making Ukraine a de facto NATO member. Putin unequivocally announced that this was a line in the sand that NATO could not cross. Ukraine's membership was an "existential threat" to Russia.

In retaliation, in August of 2008, Russia waged war against Georgia. Upping the ante, in February 2014, a crisis erupted in Ukraine precipitated by a coup, supported by the US and NATO, overthrowing President Yanukovych (who succeeded Yushchenko), replacing him with a pro-American president. This was the Euromaidan Uprising. Putin's response was to invade and annex Crimea while fomenting civil disturbance in its predominantly Russian-speaking Eastern Donbass region.

The second major crisis building up was in 2021 when Ukraine was being treated as a de facto NATO member with US-supplied arms and drones used against the Donbas region rebels; a British warship sailing in the Black Sea — long regarded as a Russian lake; and US bombers flying 14 miles off the Russian coast. These all proved to be the axiomatic last straw that broke the camel's back. Today, we have a real war!

Aggressive policy initiatives

American pundits, the policy elite in Washington D.C. and mainstream media have been selling an alternative narrative that this is not about NATO expansion but Putin recreating the glory days of the USSR or a Greater Russia. American and NATO's role were disguised, elevating instead Putin as the aggressor.

Mearsheimer's contention is that even before the first crisis on Feb. 22, 2014, during the Crimea annexation, nobody was arguing Putin was an aggressor. Putin never said he was bent on recreating the USSR or Greater Russia. He was not out to conquer Ukraine or plan to reattach Ukraine to a Greater Russia. Putin never did want to occupy Ukraine, nor did it want Ukraine to join NATO. It serves the interests of both Russia and Ukraine for the latter to remain pro-Russia — sitting as a buffer at its western boundary.

In fact, "Obama was caught with his pants down because the US didn't think Russia, Putin were aggressive. Putin doesn't have enough military to recreate Russia and economically Russia has a GNP smaller than Texas." Thus, incapable of confronting the full might of America and NATO.

Putin only understood too well the lessons of occupying Eastern European countries as a prescription for trouble during the Cold War: 1953 in East Germany; 1956 in Hungary; 1968 in Czechoslovakia; and problems with border countries Poland, Romania and Albania.

But you don't poke the Russian bear in the eye. The US and NATO did.

And God help Ukraine.