Old playbook revisited
MANY are saying it’s deja vu all over again with the plan to revise the 1987 Constitution — a document full of the promises of EDSA but which has failed Filipinos for the past 37 years. By a quirk of fate, or could it be with the nerves of steel of an unaccountable person, we have today another Marcos, borne from the belief that they should be given a second chance to rectify an error of history where a superpower had to intervene to get its old ally to deal with a problem. And that old ally is back in the nation’s good graces, courtesy of the son.
That was and is a Marcos, and today, despite all the justifications and hope that the second chance would redound to the benefit of Filipinos, we have a namesake who continually copies from the old book: new oligarchs, blue ladies and revision of the Constitution. Former president Duterte is correct; it is straight out of the old playbook via a revision of the Constitution, extending the term of the incumbent. That was the story of the 1973 Constitution, the closing of the bicameral Congress and the creation of the office of the prime minister, together with the president and the Interim Batasang Pambansa.
Why do we, as a nation, commit the same mistakes? Why can’t we move along and deal first with the economic lot of the Filipinos? Why are people afraid of criticizing the king, queen and consorts of the conjugal power that are now confronting the Filipinos? From the uniformed personnel to the civilian bureaucracy, everyone is being tilted to the wind. Why would we need to consider an extra-constitutional or extrajudicial removal from office again? Why would officials insist that amending the Constitution via “as may be provided by law” is the way to go and pursue reforms? A perfect example is the issue of dynasties, and yet no law has been passed by Congress since 1987 on the issue. And are lifting controls on education and advertising crucial to the economy? Should we just focus on the 6040? And yet, the new oligarchs certainly wouldn’t want that.
We have today a new set of oligarchs, still coming from the old elite names but this time around, second and third generations of the old men’s club of the fathers. Then we have new “blue ladies” with parties, fashion shows and the like as their shared interests — all playing consorts to the first lady. Then there are businesses eyed for recovery or control done by the various princes. Conflict of interest has been swept under the rug, and degrees of consanguinity set aside, thereby creating a hold on power reminiscent of the so-called golden era. Conjugal or not, triumvirate for some, the use of power by whatever means still seems to be the enabling landscape to secure a hold on political power. Just look at the politician’s initiative (Plan A), the adoption of the Bernas formula (Plan B) and the declaration of martial law (Plan C), all leading to an extension of term and the setting aside of the 1987 Constitution.
When the leader uttered the words during his Germany visit that China was annexing the Philippines in his grand plan of things, are we looking at another page in the old playbook? A possibility of martial law?
Unlike the father, who was president from 1965 and re-elected in 1969, only to declare martial law in 1972 and come up with a new constitution, thereby extending his term till 1986, the son was just in his almost two years in office when Oplan Sandro was launched. Focusing more on political control than alleviating the country’s economic woes, governance by diversion became the norm instead of hard work, grit and concern for the people. It seems that a piece of gold known as “ayuda” is the way to get the poor and the marginalized enthralled by such second chances. But the insult is too much even for those loyal enough to hold on to the grail.
The recent US Supreme Court ruling that public officials can be held liable for blocking critics on social media is a path to get some accountability. We hope a test case can soon be made in our system so that taking down channels is an exception rather than the general rule. Contrarian views must be respected, even at the cost of perennial attacks against leaders. In the US, the First Amendment is sacrosanct. In the Philippines, critics are muzzled because the powers that be want everything taken down, and this is done