The presidential prerogative to free speech

AWAYWARD swinging pendulum is what I like to use as visual reference for the logic or absence of it in some presidential pronouncements. Others would call the presidential style of communicating and the automatic “mopping-up operations” comedy of sorts. Either way, while it is not something that is unheard of, as we’ve seen other presidents in the past commit slip-ups in their public talks and then have their staff retract, sugarcoat, or redirect blame, it is noticeably more the norm than the exception in the current administration.

At one end of the random swing are what appear to be reckless, impulsive, and unfounded statements which when delivered in the President’s signature irreverent punchlines, hit the bullseye and generate rousing applause, especially from an audience hungry for heroic action. At the other with admissible revolutionary ideas and those rare moments of brilliance, especially when he announces wellthought out long-term plans. If one is among the 16 million Filipinos who voted for Duterte, it is likely that his words would be taken without reservation and accepted as gospel truth. For those who choose to move away quizzicals, they do so with eyes rolling in disbelief that a head of state would, without restraint, matter-of-factly - ments that unduly subject the entire country to adverse repercussions, whether perceived or real.

Does the presidential prerogative to his version of free speech then make it right for him to speak in a fashion that many deem to be uncouth, blatant, and even bullying? In the cinematic context, the “strongman” approach works perfectly for the beleaguered protagonist and in the President’s case, it works just as well in the shortrun because it delivers a shock to our lethargic system. But the style and he would need a regular supply of vacuum cleaners. His supporters would say that the President is naturally inclined to stick with his toughguy communication style because it had worked for him as Davao City’s mayor. He successfully transformed - of leadership and engagement that “shocks, shakes down, and shapes up” the constituents. So why would he change his ways now?

Perhaps there is a positive correlation in the “strongman leadership and communication style” but then again, the Philippines is not just Davao City, it is more! Outside the country, there is a larger audience and stakeholder— the rest of the world, which, for us represents many things—a trading partner, technology resource, security ally, employer of OFWs, and source of foreign cooperation, among others. To the rest of the world, a presidential statement, depending on how it is expressed, once published or broadcast, has the potential to be either fully understood or misconstrued, and can work for or against the country. A disparaging remark made against spell the end of good relations that have been built up historically with sound development diplomacy. No amount of cleansing the aftershocks, by the presidential entourage, will revert us to base zero.

Whenever I get wind of one of those explosive cum expletive presidential pronouncements, the concerned citizen in me, who happens to have worked in the development sector in her entire professional career of three decades to date, cannot help but wonder if the President has had the staff work. I was particularly disturbed - dent Obama became the President’s favorite scourging pillar, and when he told the European Community diplo inherent in these negative messages is the implication that he did not value development assistance (ODA) to the country. Because my work since 1988 has revolved around economic planning and managing government projects that are funded by international donors, I have actual experience to back my opinion that ODA has greatly contributed in implementing public interest programs that would otherwise not have been funded or undertaken by government. So, I squirm at the thought that our President may have given the wrong impression of the Philippines being an ingrate to the international community of donors. For me, it is “incredulous” (that is, “incredibly ridiculous”) to burn bridges when one can build more, a role we expect our President to play.

But then again, perhaps the President was really aware of the line he - nouncements that the country would have stronger alliances with China and Russia on matters of public investment projects in the country, one can conclude that he simply wanted to prove that he can set his own standards for diplomatic relations, completely against the tide. In disparaging the traditional partners, he would expunge them from the system and make room for new allies. The President’s prerogative,