Election Profile

Christopher Lawrence "Bong" Go #28
Senator, 19th Congress (as of Feb. 5, 2025)

Personal Information

• Age and date of birth: 50 (June 14, 1974)
• Party: Partido Demokratiko Pilipino
• Highest Educational Attainment: B.S. Marketing, Ateneo de Davao University
• Highest Government Position Held: Senator

Summary

Reelectionist Go said he will continue to focus on healthcare services, being the main proponent of Malasakit Centers. He also intends to improve food security, jobs, education, and youth programs. Go wants to promote sports to divert the youth from illegal drug use.

Stance on Key Issues

On Poverty, Controlling Inflation, and Jobs

• Initiated the Malasakit Centers in 2018 by sponsoring its legislation to provide medical relief amid rising inflation. These centers coordinate aid from PhilHealth, the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office, the Department of Health, and the Department of Social Welfare and Development.
• Co-authored Senate Bill No. 2534 seeking to increase the daily minimum wage by ₱100.
• Authored several bills seeking to promote rural industries, one of which has become law – the Agriculture, Fisheries, and Rural Development Financing Enhancement Act of 2022.

On Fighting Graft and Corruption

• One of 17 senators who voted in 2021 to tax and legalize Philippine offshore gaming operations (POGOs). In 2024, he did an about-face and claimed he had always opposed POGOs.
• Filed several bills pushing to intensify government accounting and modernize government agencies to curb red tape and corruption.

On West Philippine Sea

• Condemned China’s various acts of aggression in the West Philippine Sea and has repeatedly called on Beijing to respect the 2016 arbitral ruling.
• Filed Senate Bill No. 2112 seeking to modernize the Philippine Coast Guard in order to beef up the country’s defense in the West Philippine Sea.

On The Drug War

• A vocal supporter of Duterte’s war on drugs, calling the allegations of a reward system in the killing of drug suspects “baseless.”
• Asserts that the International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction in the country and has backed President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.'s decision to not cooperate with their investigation.

• Mobilizes his Malasakit team to distribute post-calamity relief.
• Filed bills establishing a Department of Disaster Resilience and mandating evacuation centers to be set up in every city, municipality, and province in the country.

Government Experience / Field of Expertise

• Senator (2019 – present)
• Special Assistant to the President of Rodrigo Duterte (2016–2018)
• Executive Assistant to Rodrigo Duterte
  • First Congressional District Office (1998–2001)
  • Office of the City Mayor (2001–2010; 2013–2016)
  • Office of the Vice Mayor (2010–2013)

Issues and Controversies

• Go was accused of financing the killing of illegal drug suspects under former president Rodrigo Duterte by self-confessed former hitmen, who submitted written testimonies to the International Criminal Court, and by former police colonel Royina Garma in her testimony before the House quad committee.
• The House quad committee has recommended that Go be charged with crimes against humanity over his alleged involvement in extrajudicial drug war killings.
• Former senator Antonio Trillanes IV filed a plunder complaint against Go in 2024, accusing him of awarding ₱6 billion in warship contracts to companies owned by his family from 2007 to 2018. Go was investigated over the issue in 2018, and he claimed innocence.

Family Members in Government

• None

• Reelectionists (incumbents seeking another term)
• Returning (former senators running for a new term)
• Former government officials
• Members or are backed by major political parties

Made it at least once in the top 20 of pre-election surveys conducted by independent pollsters Pulse Asia, Social Weather Stations and OCTA Research.

• Poverty, jobs and inflation
• Fighting graft and corruption
• West Philippine Sea
• Drug war
• Disaster preparedness

Each profile also contains the candidate's legislative agenda, government experience or field of expertise, issues and controversies faced, relatives in government and other interesting facts. Also included are the pertinent fact checks of, or related to the candidate, done by VERA Files Fact Check and its media and academic partners in the Tsek.ph collaboration.

Part 1 of the series covers incumbent senators seeking reelection: Pia Cayetano, Ronald Dela Rosa, Christopher Lawrence Go, Maria Imelda Marcos, Manuel Lapid, Ramon Revilla Jr. and Francis Tolentino.

Editorial Cartoon

CRYING OVER CHOICES

Sixth of a series

IN last week's column, a conclusion was arrived at as a response to a question on whether the Philippines can produce a moral leader with Lincolnesque qualities embodying "integrity, moral courage and principled leadership..." President FVR, after the EDSA revolution that he helped foment, may have been the closest exemplar of this type of leadership. Given the hindsight of history, however, the good president barely made a dent in the system of governance itself. He initiated changes in the dysfunctional unitary-presidential structure of government enshrined in the 1987 Constitution and attempted a constitutional revision, shifting to parliamentary government. He failed!

FVR was a believer in the "free market." He fashioned his "Philippine Vision 2000," his socioeconomic program toward industrialization by the turn of the century, by breaking down monopolies in the banking and financial sectors, power and energy and the stagnant telecommunications sectors, among others. But there were near misses as when he lost our steel industry, which thrived during the 1950s and 1960s. Liberalizing the economy without first reforming the political and systemic underpinnings of his government merely transferred control of these industries from inefficient state parastatals to the oligarchy.

Estrada, GMA, PNoy administrations

Subsequent presidents understood that the systemic defects in the 1987 Constitution needed to be eliminated. FVR's presidency was followed by the ex-actor "Erap" and economist Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Both attempted a restructuring through the former's Constitutional Correction for Development (Concord) and the latter's Constitutional Commission (2006 ConCom). President GMA proposed to shift our form of government from unitary-presidential to federal-parliamentary. The legislature, the bastion of political dynasties and the oligarchy blocked constitutional revisions to effect these changes. Inevitably, the system consumed Erap's and GMA's administrations in corruption, ending their careers ignominiously with brief jail time for plunder (which was later dropped).

President Noynoy Aquino had to protect his mother Cory's 1987 Constitution and her legacy, and no attempt at structural reforms was initiated. And the system's defects allowed him one of his most anomalous acts — the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona, with the complicit legislature bribing the senators with millions of pesos to convict. Some of these honorable men are still sitting senators, and some are seeking re-election.

The Deegong

President Duterte's human rights violations through the extrajudicial killings (EJK) in his war against illegal drugs are no less deadly and shameful as his administration's massive corruption scandals during the Covid-19 pandemic. I wrote back then: "All these occurring during the country's highest regime of pain and trauma, the continued harvest of dead souls through mismanagement of the pandemic and its resultant economic devastation. The repercussions are wide and long-term, and the aftermath is grim. The leadership of today's branches of government will be answerable to the generations to come."

Corruption and incompetence — a deadly combination

And BBM's watch today is no better. It does not only reek with the stench of corruption in cahoots with his allies in Congress — Speaker Martin and his minions — but is exacerbated by his incompetence. There is no dearth of instances, as revealed by his first executive secretary, spokesman and erstwhile campaign strategist, lawyer Vic Rodriguez, that many positions in the bureaucracy and boards of government corporations remained unfilled for months on end because the president had to refer to the first lady. He was promptly replaced as executive secretary, reportedly upon the behest of the president's wife, after just 79 days in that high position.

This is presidential incompetence on a grand scale if an unelected individual in the confidence of the president, his wife, has a say in running the government bureaucracy. From the words of his own vice president — although self-serving as their UniTeam is irreparably broken — "The sitting leader does not know how to become president... I don't ever remember him discussing what he would do in government." VP Sara was referring to BBM's mishandling of such problems as inflation and food security to what she called a lack of clear government policies.

Asian exemplars

It is generally an accepted truism that after WWII, the Philippines was at par or even economically ahead or more progressive than our neighbors. For these purposes, I cite only three — Singapore, South Korea and Malaysia. Today, in the ranking of the most progressive countries, the Philippines (GDP $437/$10,755 per capita) ranks far behind these three countries: Singapore (GDP $501 billion/$141,500), South Korea (GDP $1.71 trillion/$54,033) and Malaysia (GDP $400 billion/$37,248).

Political economists attribute these to many factors. But among those dominant ones are their systems of governance. Singapore has a parliamentary-unitary form; Malaysia has a parliamentary with constitutional monarchy; and South Korea has a presidential system similar to ours but with a unicameral legislature and no competing power bloc equivalent to the Philippine Senate.

But more importantly, they have strong and driven leaders, patriots, and men possessed with the political will to ram their visions through for the good of their people — which we in the Philippines have pined for but never had.

These are the common features of Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew, Malaysia's Mahathir Mohammad Mahathir and South Korea's Park Chung-hee.

These leaders appeared at crucial moments in their respective countries' history and played pivotal roles in transforming them into economic powerhouses. They may not be moral in the Judeo-Christian context that in the Philippine cultural profile we cherish so much in our leadership yet only pay lip service to.

Foremost among these traits were their clear visions for their country's future. They demonstrated strong, sometimes authoritarian, leadership to implement their plans. They prioritized economic development and national stability, often at the expense of the liberal Western-imposed values on personal freedoms and political dissent.

They embraced a model of state-led economic development, where government played a significant role in directing economic policies, investing in key industries, and fostering strategic sectors. This often included the establishment of state-owned enterprises and the promotion of export-oriented growth. And they valued meritocracy in their bureaucracy to manage these parastatals.

All three leaders recognized the importance of education and skills development, investing heavily in education systems to create a skilled workforce capable of meeting the demands of a rapidly changing global economy. The Philippine system is trimmed toward producing OFWs.

Each leader implemented policies that created favorable conditions for foreign direct investment (FDI). They offered incentives, established special economic zones, and ensured political stability with an iron fist to attract multinational corporations. The economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution have long been a hindrance to FDIs. Calls for amendment and revisions have been stymied by the oligarchy and their allies, the political dynasties out to protect their interests.

They promoted export-led strategies, focusing on manufacturing and technology sectors to drive economic growth. This was particularly evident in South Korea and Singapore, where exports became a significant driver of GDP growth.

And more importantly, these leaders implemented measures to control corruption and improve governance, which helped build trust in government institutions and created a conducive environment for business.

And so, I reiterate: shackled to an inherently defective system of governance, can we ever have this type of leadership in our country?

The Supreme Court has started its oral arguments on the transfer of PhilHealth funds to the National Treasury to be used for other government projects.

In Saleema Refran’s Tuesday report on “24 Oras,” the petitioners presented why the transfer of unused PhilHealth funds is unconstitutional.

The petitioners particularly expressed opposition to the circular of the Department of Finance and the provision of the General Appropriations Act, which paved the way for the return of nearly P90 billion PhilHealth funds to the National Treasury.

Last year, PhilHealth remitted P60 billion to the National Treasury while the court halted the transfer of the remaining P29.9 billion after a petition was filed.

“The questioned provision and DOF circular are inconsistent, incompatible, and irreconcilable with the Universal Health Care Act and the Sin Tax Law. UHC's objective is clear, to provide social health insurance and risk protection to all Filipinos,” said lawyer Paula Mae Tanquieng, counsel of the petitioners.

“In computing the alleged fund balance, DOF defied the clear language of the sin tax laws, stating that these funds be used exclusively for universal health care. These funds were sourced from sin taxes and cannot be used for other purposes, irrespective of how noble the purpose is,” she added.

Finance Secretary Ralph Recto, Health Secretary Teodoro Herbosa, Social Welfare Secretary Rex Gatchalian, and former PhilHealth president Emmanuel Ledesma Jr. attended the hearing.

The respondents were represented by the Office of the Solicitor General and the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel.

The respondents said the transfer of PhilHealth funds is legal and under the constitution.

“It was the executive and legislative department’s way of creating and implementing a fiscal policy to boost economic growth without bloating the government’s indebtedness or burdening the people with new tax measures. It is a common sense approach that does not violate any law much less the constitution, in any way,” Solicitior General Menardo Guevarra said.

“I assure the honorable court and the people that contrary to what has been portrayed by some critics, there was no dark nor sinister plan behind the transfer,” he added.

The solicitor general requested to remove President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. as respondent since a president has immunity from suit while in position.

The three petitions on PhilHealth funds filed in the Supreme Court were consolidated and will be heard simultaneously.

Justice Amy Lazaro Javier questioned if PhilHealth has a reserve fund.

Although he confirmed that investment is the last in the order of priorities, Deputy Treasurer Eduardo Anthony Marino said PhilHealth “generates more revenues than expenditures.”

“I will show you the report of COA (Commission on Audit), which shows that PhilHealth is bankrupt actually.  I don’t know if you're aware of that. You ought to be aware. and COA has repeatedly highlighted that in its letters to PhilHealth, and then COA said that for many years, at least 3 years, 2021, 2022, 2023, the reserve fund of PhilHealth is much much less than its actuarial fund, actuarial estimate,” Javier said.

Before the oral arguments, several groups held a protest outside the Supreme Court. —Mariel Celine Serquiña/LDF, GMA Integrated News

Fifth of a series

THIS series started with "Bankruptcy in Philippine politics," followed by "Executive and legislative disequilibrium," exposing the distortion of the balance of power, a cherished democratic tenet handed down to us by our American colonialists. This complicit manipulation by our political leadership produced an anomalous 2025 budget and precipitated some sort of citizens pretend-indignation, in a misnamed "peace rally" by a powerful sect. Last week's was a cursory discussion of an alternative form of government by way of highlighting the most advanced and successful countries in the world that adopted the principles inherent in a federal-parliamentary form of government ("Federal parliamentary and EDSA version 2.0, The Manila Times, Jan. 29, 2025).

John Raña, a political technocrat, pointed out succinctly that the bankruptcy in Philippine politics could be traced to "[c]orruption [as] the root cause of many of the Philippines' most pressing problems — poverty, poor infrastructure, inadequate healthcare and a weak justice system. No matter how ambitious a leader's economic or social programs may be, they will never succeed if corruption continues to siphon [off] public funds and weaken institutions. This is why the greatest president in Philippine history will be the one who can effectively eliminate corruption."

Two kernels of thought have been introduced. Government corruption and the need for a president who can eradicate corruption and restore trust in leadership. Raña's take was for the emergence of a Philippine version of Abraham Lincoln, embodying "integrity, moral courage, and principled leadership — qualities desperately needed in Philippine politics today," closing with a teaser: "Will we see that person in our lifetime?"

Political economy of corruption in governance

Government corruption has always intrigued people at different levels. The academia engrossed with its theory and practice may originate scholarly solutions safe within the confines of their classrooms and lecture halls, sheltered from the repercussions of their results in real life. On the other hand, the political technocrats are enthralled not so much by the practice and theory per se but by the actual impact of public policies emanating from those gifted by the electorate with the privilege to govern. These honorable people comprising our political leadership are where, collectively, in our decadeslong experience, corruption is endemic.

Briefly, the political economy of corruption in government explores the dynamics between politics and socio-economy that underwrite corrupt practices within public institutions. It seeks to understand how corruption affects governance, economic development and social equity, as well as the institutional frameworks that can either mitigate or exacerbate corrupt behavior. These involve the application of incentives and disincentives that shape corrupt behavior among public officials and private actors.

In its simplest form, corruption in governance is the abuse of power by public officials for private gain. This undermines democratic institutions and the rule of law, leaving them weak and inutile — subject to the whims of those who lead us.

Government corruption has deep historical and cultural roots in the Philippines from the 300 years of Spanish colonial legacy of patronage where datus and sultans were coopted to enforce colonial rule. The subsequent American colonials piggybacked on this relationship, introducing a Western-type bureaucracy that was alien to Filipinos, as substitutes for thriving patronage, distorting family loyalty that eventually planted the seeds of political clans anomalously favored in governance that we now label political dynasties. And these permeated our political system for decades.

Myth of a moral leader eradicating corruption

It is a given that central to good governance is the need for a strong and moral leader. He is expected to set the tone for good governance by implementing policies aimed at combating corruption. What is expected of the leader is to set the right example that may be emulated down through the length and breadth of the political leadership and the bureaucracy.

But the fallacy lies in the rise of that particular type of leadership in the Philippine context. The path to power for this leader, unfortunately, is through the systemic infirmities in governance. Our type of democracy, evolved over the decades, relies on a severely flawed electoral process that favors the choice of patrons for the highest offices, paying lip service to meritocracy.

This could be attributable to voters' preference for popular, charismatic personalities and their ability to secure votes through networks of family clans and political dynasties, irrespective of their qualifications. Socioeconomic disparities of candidates oftentimes bolster effective campaigning for the wealthier, resource-rich candidates, giving them the wherewithal for voter bribery and even threats or use of violence — the proverbial "guns, gold and goons." All these lead to an uneven playing field, marginalizing meritocratic candidates from less affluent backgrounds and the Pinoy version of the "basket of deplorables."

It is expedient to blame voters for their lack of adequate information and education to make informed choices. The system notoriously does not provide adequately for the same. This is further exacerbated by weak electoral institutions that fail to put in place mechanisms for monitoring elections that often result in massive irregularities and fraud — undermining public trust in the electoral process. And the current political superstructure, the legislature — the senators and congressmen — complicit with the sitting president, are the crucial dramatis personae authorized to propose changes in the system. They will not, as these are all against self-interest.

Thus, the process of a choice of the Lincolnesque type of leadership is impossible — a pie in the sky. The Philippine political system, inherently defective will not allow a singular moral and decent leader to assume political power. It has always been a collective political coven, a product of a wicked compromise between good and evil, right and wrong, corrupt and less corrupt. There is no deus ex machina!

Drastic changes

At this juncture, I refer to my column on the type of system that could produce the leadership our country needs to propel the Philippines to sit at the table of prosperous nations. ( "Asian models of governance," TMT, Sept. 23, 2023)

We made a case for pursuing alternatives to our kind of democracy that is not working as intended by our American colonialists. We compared democratic governments and authoritarian regimes — isolating criteria that could work for us and those we need to discard. Whether a government is democratic or authoritarian, it must, above all, serve and promote the welfare of its people by protecting their security and well-being, maintaining law and order, and providing essential public services, which are equated with universal access to health care, education, employment and dwelling (HEED). For this to be possible, governments must ensure that their economy grows and is stable — an utmost priority. Freedom of speech, choice of beliefs, freedom to dissent, and even freedom to bear arms are subordinate. The controversy and clash of ideas start with how Western and Eastern cultures define and perceive these freedoms as central to their system of governance.

I looked as exemplars our progressive Asian neighbors and the type of system that allowed them to breed their kind of leadership: Lee Kwan Yew (LKY) of Singapore, Mahathir Mohammad of Malaysia and Park Chung-hee of South Korea.

To be continued on Feb 12, 2025

Fourth of a series

TOMES have been written about the superiority of a federal-parliamentary system to the unitary-presidential form that we have now. We advocate federal-parliamentary as an alternative. All Filipino presidents understood the imperatives for systemic changes from the very start of their rule, only to falter somewhere in the course of their administrations when personal political interests or the vested interest of their patrons were threatened.

Without delving into lengthy arguments reinforcing the relative superiority of federal-parliamentary, I am reprinting my updated column, "Federal-parliamentary vs unitary-presidential system" (The Manila Times, June 15, 2022). The lists of countries lifted from the 2024 Corruption Perception Index (CPI) by Transparency International show compelling statistics of corrupt countries with their corresponding system of governments.

10 most corrupt, least transparent countries

1. Somalia – federal parliamentary; 2. Venezuela – federal presidential; 3. Syria - authoritarian presidential; 4. South Sudan – federal presidential; 5. Yemen – presidential; 6. North Korea - totalitarian presidential; 7. Nicaragua - authoritarian presidential; 8. Haiti – presidential; 9. Equatorial Guinea – presidential; 10. Turkmenistan – presidential.

Nine of the above are under a presidential system. Only Somalia has a federal-parliamentary government.

10 least peaceful nations

1. Yemen – presidential; 2. Sudan - federal presidential; 3. South Sudan - federal presidential; 4. Afghanistan – presidential; 5. Ukraine – presidential; 6. Democratic Republic of the Congo – presidential; 7. Russia – federal presidential; 8. Syria – presidential; 9. Israel – parliamentary; 10. Mali – presidential.

Of this list, nine have presidential forms, and only Israel is parliamentary. Similarly, of the nations with the highest terrorism index, six have presidential governments — Mali, Syria, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Myanmar and Niger; and four — Burkina Faso, Israel, Pakistan and Somalia — have a combination of parliamentary-semi-presidential governments.

10 least corrupt nations

By contrast, Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Canada and Germany are the world's top 10 "least corrupt" nations. All have parliamentary systems although Singapore had a strong prime minister in Lee Kwan Yew, the founding leader. Include in this list the United States, Australia and Ireland. Only the US, among them, adopts a federal presidential form.

15 most prosperous nations

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

Empirical evidence clearly indicates that a parliamentary government is superior to a presidential system and suggests further that a federal trumps a unitary system.

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

Path toward change — fed-parl govt

Only through the revision of the 1987 Constitution can a federal-parliamentary system be installed. But going through the three modes of constitutional revision and amendments — people's initiative (PI), constituent assembly (ConAss) or a constitutional convention (ConCon) – any of these modes must involve the acts of a disgraceful legislature. This has been attempted several times in the last three decades. The legislature even refuses to pass laws against political dynasties — acting against their interest — although proscribed in the 1987 Cory Constitution. Systemic change is thus impossible through this legal process.

My recent columns suggested sane people in the military act to break the impasse and take control of the desperate situation we find ourselves in. I suggested that "perhaps we need a shogun – a temporary one along the lines of an FVR." Some of my readers, like Agnes Marcella L. "...doubts that military intervention would do much to significantly alter the status quo (as) the system (itself) would devour them just the same. (It's) such a big gamble because who in the military has the gravitas to direct the country in that direction without being co-opted in the process? I highly doubt constitutional changes rank high in the minds of these men in uniform."

She is partly right, as the events that unfolded leading toward the 1986 EDSA People Power uprising abetted by a military component would suggest. The civilian government, led by President Cory, mandated to enact a new constitution instead, emerged with one negating the seeds of systemic changes and reverted to the old and familiar and utterly anomalous. The adoption of a parliamentary government, which was the original intent of her constituencies, was aborted, and a unitary presidential system of government, with all its inherent iniquities, was retained.

Thus, signaling the start of the recapture of the EDSA People Power by the remnants of the old regime, the old oligarchy and her new oligarchy, the "kamag-anak," later co-opted with the emergence of the Estradas, the Macapagals, the Aquinos and the Dutertes, retaining the old values resulting in the continuation of the practices of traditional politics and the proliferation of political dynasties. The fulfillment of the promises of people power cum military component eventually failed, paving the way for the return of the very family that was booted out in 1986 — the Marcos-Romualdez clan. And the narratives of a dysfunctional system continue to plague the land.

EDSA version 2.0

We need to learn from its failures in 1983-1986 when the civilian and uniformed components did not work in sync after the assassination of Ninoy when the political atmosphere was ripe for change. We have similar conditions today exacerbated by the impunity of our political leadership. Former generals and retired military personnel are voicing out their frustrations directed toward the political leadership, calling for their removal. These are allies possessing the right kind of expertise. Civic society needs to reach out to them for a dialogue arriving at commonalities for a systemic change.

This is a desperate solution and one fraught with risks. But with the trajectory, we find ourselves in an executive branch complicit with a shameless legislature, with the judiciary inutile –our complacency condemns us toward perdition.

Another of my readers posits the idea that you only need to choose the right leaders. John Raña argues that "Philippine politics has long been framed as a battle between rival families or a choice between the lesser evil—a false narrative that traps the nation in a cycle of failed leadership. The challenge now is to reject recycled names and demand real leadership. The right leader will not come from dynasties but from the ashes of their failures." John's thesis is that corruption in government is the root cause of the country's pressing problems, and a good president who truly can defeat corruption will not only clean up government but also restore trust in leadership. This is a palliative. Corruption is a symptom of systemic dysfunctions.

No doubt, a decent president is a must. But the fallacy of these arguments has been exposed several generations back. Tongue in cheek, it has been advanced too that even if Jesus Christ sits on top of our Philippine government structure, he will fail. The system will eat him alive.

Kingdom Keepers, a coalition of concerned citizens, is calling for a mass indignation rally on Jan. 31 at the EDSA Shrine. I will be there. This could be the beginning of...

Second of a series

WITH the passage of the 2025 budget, dubbed as the most corrupt budget ever, it is now apparent that this country is led by criminals in the highest echelons of government — the executive and legislative branches. They have, in one fell swoop, done away with the concept of "checks and balances," the main feature of good governance. The separation of powers, the hallmark of our democracy enshrined in our 1935 and 1987 constitutions, has been reduced to a parody by our political leadership.

Consider the following: the legislative branch, made up of the two houses — the Senate and the House of Representatives — to make and amend laws. They also have the "power of the purse" to allocate funds for specific purposes through the passage of appropriate laws. In short, it oversees and controls the spending of the executive branch — the presidency, which includes the Office of the Vice President, the OVP, the president's nemesis.

The executive recommends spending proposals to Congress to align with its power to enforce laws and command the military. Metaphorically, this is equivalent to the "power of the sword;" its role is to take action to protect the nation from harm.

Independent branches — a fallacy

What, in fact, transpired was that the legislative branch has allowed the bicameral conference committee (bicam) to purportedly reconcile conflicting provisions to formulate a totally different allocation protocol, employing opaque budgetary practices characterized by a lack of transparency and accountability.

One glaring example is the equivalent of the unconstitutional "pork barrel," something they can divvy up among themselves. This is the generous P26 billion "Ayuda sa Kapos ang Kita Program" (AKAP) funds, the House speaker's brainchild, the use of which is intended to catapult him to the presidency in 2028.

Over the Senate's initial objections, P5 billion bought the silence of the senators, and the balance of P21 billion satisfying the greed of the lower house, courtesy of the bicam, an entity that does not even appear in the Constitution. But it acts with impunity where decisions are concocted in the proverbial "smoke-filled rooms." And in a subsequent "moro-moro" of a purported line-item veto, President Marcos, complicit to this travesty, left this pork intact in the budget.

Midterm elections 2025

With this connivance, we can expect the Marcos-Romualdez cabal to have the logistics stolen from the people to get their political allies elected in the local government units, which consequently will impact the choice of district representatives. This is crucial to the ambition of Martin Romualdez as he needs to retain his speakership as a springboard to the presidency in 2028.

The incoming Senate could present a different scenario. Their being elected nationwide places them in a near equivalent status to the presidency. Traditionally the launch pad to the presidency, the Marcos-Romualdez cabal needs to buy their fealty.

Of the 12 chosen Marcos-Romualdez 2025 SEnate candidates, five incumbent re-electionists have a fair chance of making it — the fourth termers Pia Cayetano, Lito Lapid and Bong Revilla. So, too, Imee Marcos and Francis Tolentino on their first full term.

Add to this list the possible return of three "same old, same old," Tito Sotto already on his fifth senatorial run, Panfilo Lacson on his fourth and Manny Pacquiao on his second. These eight senators out of 12 get Marcos-Romualdez a third of the 2025 Senate.

But the betting is that the Senate institution will further be debased with the entrance of two Tulfo siblings, completing a family of three: Raffy, Erwin and Ben. We currently have two sets of siblings, the Cayetanos and Ejercito/Estrada, and a mother/son, Cynthia and Mark Villar. On the wings are children and siblings-substitutes indecently waiting. Before long, this chamber will soon be dominated by political dynasties and family clans.

Cries of protests

On Jan. 13, citizens from all walks of life gathered to protest this impunity and massive plunder of the people's coffers. The Iglesia Ni Kristo (INK) called for its membership nationwide to show indignation under the guise of peace rallies. But trolls have also been inundating social media depicting this show of force as anti-Marcos and pro-Sara Duterte — which INK has belied.

On the other hand, similar rallies, particularly in the bailiwick of the Dutertes, are being held, but with a twist — to champion the cause of their family, particularly the VP and pointedly anti-Marcos, diverting the people from the family's own misdeeds.

Nevertheless, all these could be in response to what former Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio declared in his social media postings: "...The halls of Congress and the Senate reek of betrayal. This is no longer just a circus — it is a grand heist, a vicious mockery of the Filipino people's sacrifices... our so-called leaders are busy looting not just our wealth but our very dignity. They are no leaders — they are traitors — a ruthless betrayal. Let us not mince words — this is treason. Yet these cowards violated the law with impunity. Our silence makes us complicit. Our silence feeds their arrogance. Why are we not in the streets? Why do we allow these thieves to gut our nation while we watch from the sidelines? Enough is enough. This is no longer about politics — it's about survival."

"But there is hope. We, the people, are the true power of this nation. We can end this betrayal. The time to fight is now. Let our anger be our fuel. Let our indignation spark a revolution of accountability. The question is not if we can fight back. The question is, will we fight back before it's too late?"

Carpio was a veteran of the EDSA People Power (EDSA 1986) that catapulted Cory Aquino to the presidency. Carpio understood the formula that precipitated the downfall of another Marcos in 1986. It worked then. But can this be replicated? Unfortunately, the subsequent EDSA 1986 events reflected Cory's naivete and ignorance and substituted another corrupt government. The goodwill of the hordes of Filipinos clamoring for change was enormously wasted by the "kamag-anak."

Immediate but intermediate solution

All these cries and rallies could amount to nothing, knowing the enormous political power and impunity of the reigning Marcos-Romualdez cabal and their cohorts in government. We need more than mere protest.

At this point, I quote a confidant of President FVR, John Raña's postings on "...the role of the military as the ultimate arbiter of political stability. This is rooted in historical precedent, as the military has played decisive roles in events such as the ouster of Ferdinand Marcos Sr. in 1986 and Joseph Estrada in 2001... the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) is traditionally seen as a guardian of national stability, often stepping in during crises where civilian authority falters."

At this time when the political leadership is led by the corrupt — with very few exceptions — perhaps we need a shogun, a temporary one along the lines of an FVR.

We need the sane people in the military to take control of the situation.