June 2018
« May    

What is sacred for President Duterte?

(Jeffrey) Philippine Flag TatterdIndependence Day doesn’t seem to be, it isn’t the first time he didn’t come. The Supreme Court might or might not be, as he has flip-flopped on statements whether he would respect their judgement on Martial Law. The (formerly) pro-Western orientation of the Philippines I doubt.

Are the dead sacred for him? If their name is President Ferdinand E. Marcos, most probably. If they are among the many dead in the drug war, most probably not (link) even if they are children (link). Korean businessman Jee Ick Joo was even flushed down the toilet (link). Like some excrement.

Even Stone Age men, yes even Neanderthals respected the dead and buried them properly. Among enemies in war, it was part of the honor code to bury the enemy properly. Most famous were the honors given to Filipino General Gregorio del Pilar by his enemies in battle, the Texas Rangers.

What is even stranger is that so many Filipinos still seem to be callous (manhid) to all of this. What is still sacred to them, one may ask? Has Filipino culture turned into Wowowee, anything goes? A sense of the sacred makes us human beings. Things beyond daily survival that we think matter.

Respect for the dead who have helped build society we live in. Respect for the nation which should benefit all. Respect for laws which keep our egoisms in check. Respect for women. Respect for commitments to others – partners and allies. Is everything just expediency? What can be trusted?

Irineo B. R. Salazar

München, 12. June 2017

26 comments to What is sacred for President Duterte?


    “The Liberal Party was a traditional party that was forced to embrace new politics during the dark days of the Marcos dictatorship,” explained Julio Teehankee, professor of political science at the De La Salle University.

    In the aftermath of the dictatorship, Teehankee noted, the LP “transformed” into the “principled party” that took clear-cut positions on raging issues such as the closing down of US bases, the impeachment of former president Erap Estrada, and allegations that former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo cheated in the 2004 elections.

    At the same time, Teehankee said, “Old habits die hard.”

    “The Liberal Party cannot turn its back on traditional politics. It needed to bargain, to play the game in order to get a share of political power. Despite its principled position, it was always a coalition partner of all administration parties since Cory Aquino,” he said.

    For a party that has always taken a progressive stand on key issues, Teehankee said the Liberal Party failed to stick to its “principled reform politics” in the 6 years it was in power under Aquino.


      In last Thursday’s event of the Ateneo School of Government, “Change has come? A briefing on the first year of Duterte’s administration,” I showed evidence from three decades of the Social Weather Surveys that there already were extensive gains in governance and the quality of life in 2010-16, though of course many serious problems remained unsolved.

      Public morale started being high in 2010, and maintained its momentum up to the first quarter of this year. Satisfaction with democracy hit new peaks after the elections of 2010, 2013 and 2016. Optimism about the economy turned radically, from negative to positive. In personal quality of life, gainers have exceeded losers since early 2015. (See “Six optimistic years,” 1/02/16, “Exceptionally high public morale,” 1/30/16, and “Filipinos got better off in 2015-16,” 2/18/17.)

      • Mariano Renato Pacifico

        I agree. Public service in the Philippines is much better than before. Public servant are sensitive to public needs what is holding them back is budget. They still allot a certain percentage to corruption though. What the Philippine Government cannot grapple are traffic gridlock and urban planning. This Urban Planning should not be assigned to U.P.-graduates. It should be given to Koreans or Japanese. They know how to plan and knows the cause and effect of urban planning on traffic. Might as well Filipinos talk to Lee Kuan Yew. Their public transport is so efficient because Lee tax the vehicles to the point that Singaporeans take public transport.

        The U.P.-graduates should study my lifestyle. My lifestyle is a microcosm of reactive behavior around the world. WHEN I SEE the highways are widened and people taking public transport I stop taking public transport andI take out my Toyota Corolla, Filipinos luxury car of choice, to buy pan de sal so like others then gridlock comes back to haunt us again.

        The only way to fix traffic gridlock is tax vehicle to the point it is useless to buy them.

    • Mariano Renato Pacifico

      What bewilders me about Philippine Media and particularly Rappler is they can analyze politics because it is the only science to Filipinos they can analyze but TOTAL FAILURE to analyze why 1stWorld countries prefers forensic evidence, forensic accounting and keeping their mouth shut while their investigation is on-going. 1stWorld descend on suspect companies without fanfare and public announcement and out they came with boxes of potential accounting evidence.

      In the 4thWorld country, Philippines, where Philippine Media and the likes of Rappler thrive they make announcement that this and that are under investigation and they will go visit them to ASK not DEMAND for evidences.

      Philippines is still be very very very far behind in INTELLECT. They are good in English. In fact Filipinos are English-snobs but when anyone steps back and compare English-Challenged neighboring countries against English-Snob Filipinos, of course, it is clear as day English-Snob Filipinos are soooooooo left behind. Philippines is even the most LEAST VISITED COUNTRIES IN SOUTHEAST ASIA.

      The only existing SCIENCE IN THE PHILIPPINES IS “POLITICAL SCIENCE”. Even in POLITICAL SCIENCE Filipinos are still wrong.


    ..President Rodrigo Duterte’s single-minded campaign against drugs has had serious side-effects beyond the widely reported killings and gross human rights violations. It has already served to de-professionalize the security services, and has shifted their attention and scant resources away from the threat posed by the proliferation of terrorist groups.

    Mr. Duterte’s endorsement of extrajudicial killings is also gutting the rule of law, and that only emboldens government opponents, especially the militant kind: With every heavy-handed state response, they appear to gain in legitimacy. The same goes for the president’s decision to declare martial law throughout the island of Mindanao almost as soon as Islamists laid siege to parts of Marawi…


    Our undemocratic mentality
    The starting point for achieving the ideal of good government is a change in the people’s attitudes.
    By Manuel L. Quezon, Jr.
    January 11, 1967

    Studies on government all too often suffer from a very serious defect: they fail to devote time and space to a consideration of four factors, which have a decisive influence on the success of failure of the government. Those four factors are: the ideal of government, the constitution and laws in which that ideal is embodied, the way in which that embodiment is applied to practice, and the mentality and customs of the people.
    Those four factors are not isolated, unrelated things; they hinge on one another, they are so interrelated that, unless the proper relationship between them is maintained, successful, efficient government cannot be achieved or, if already achieved, cannot long be sustained. Let us begin by explaining very briefly what those four factors mean.
    The idea of government, or ideal of government if you wish, is to concept, the theory of the kind of government, which the country under the consideration is supposed to have. We have, for example, the ideal of a democratic republic. An ideal, however, is not of much use unless it takes concrete form.
    We would have no government at all if we were to rest content with saying that we want a democratic republic: it is necessary that a definite form be given to that ideal, by having a constitution and laws which determine the basic principles of the government, the allocation of powers to the officials of the government, qualifications of officials to be selected, etc.
    Thus far, however, we are still in what we might call the realm of the theoretical. How are the constitution and the laws put into practice? Is the constitution observed? If not, is it because the constitution cannot be observed or because there is no desire to observe it? Lastly, what sort of mentality do the people have? Does it accord with the constitution and the ideal of government? How compatible are the customs of the people with the ideal, its constitutional embodiment, and practice?
    As the reader must have noticed, there is a connection between the four factors. The connection between them is not such that one of them can be left out of the picture without serious consequences. Ultimately, they are all dependent on the last factor, the mentality of the people and their customs.
    The ideal of government presumably exists in those who rule. But it must exist over and above all in the people.This is not a case of high-toned idealism; it is a practical and unavoidable necessity…

    What is the Filipino mentality in regard to government? I do not think our mentality is substantially democratic, except insofar as every human being’s mind and heart may be said to be democratic, because deep down in every human being there is some kind of yearning for freedom. But in countless instances, despite our protestations of our democratic convictions and commitment, we show that the opposite is the case. A look back on our history will show why.
    Our pre-Spanish society was made up of three classes –slaves, freemen, and nobles. An aristocratic society, in other words. It was not what the Europeans call an absolute monarchy –it seems that a more highly developed state of affairs is necessary for that. The long years under Spanish rule did nothing to destroy the social mentality that went with such a pre-Spanish society, although the legal status of slave had been abolished.
    I can remember very well the pre-war relationship of servants to masters –from what I have read of the relationship between slave and master in pre-Spanish days, I gather there was not much difference between the two relationships..

    The general reliance of the Filipino on the wisdom and goodness of those above him on the political, social, and economic ladder, which was transferred from the maginoo class to the Spanish rulers, then to the American rulers, finally to the Filipinos who replaced them, is also, to say the least, not very conducive to a truly democratic mentality and democratic attitudes.
    This explains in large part why so many of our politicians, when holding office, do not really feel that they can be called to account for any of their actions. It also explains why public office and public property are so often treated as personal belongings, almost as something which is by right in the family.
    Thus, we hold on to a title long after the position has been relinquished. The manner in which we treat our public officials is another indication of an undemocratic mentality –we refer to them very impertinently when they are not around, and yet when they do make an appearance, we practically fall on our faces before them. It is not the dignified respect which implies self-respect.
    The insufferable manners of those who manage to climb up the ladder of success, the way in which they try to lord it over those under their authority or below their position in the community, show how undemocratic we really are in our outlook.
    Some will of course say that the aggressiveness of the underprivileged Filipino is a proof of the spread of a truly democratic mentality. I challenge the allegation.
    The aggressiveness of the under-privileged Filipino is no different from that of his fellow countrymen, only aggravated –it is of the chip-on-the-shoulder variety, which again is not indicative of the self-assurance as to equality which is part and parcel of the democratic mind..

    It is only the development of a genuinely democratic mentality which will protect us from the horrible temptation of a society which allows for no differences at all, no personal initiative free from state control, and no individual distinctions based on natural and acquired gifts on the one hand; and deliver us from the present situation, in which our undemocratic mentality continually obstructs our democratic aspirations. For aspirations there are, and the change in our mentality was started long ago, but unless we are very sensible about this whole business, and relentlessly pursue our goal of a truly democratic mentality based on the deep conviction of our God-given equality as human beings, with all it implies both of sameness and of diversity, we shall not merely fail to progress –we shall end in tragedy. –#

  • karlgarcia

    I wanted to react on the flag, but that is what a flag looks like during war. Even if it is tattered a patriot should be proud to wave it. In non war situations old or destroyed flags should be replaced by new ones.


    Digong is boss, not the bayan’s champion

    Duterte has nationalized this local ‘way of doing politics,’ with its associated coercive features, vulgar argot, and a more personalized patronage system

    It is easier to label President Rodrigo Duterte as a populist with an authoritarian tan. It sets him apart from his predecessors, but it also makes it easy to his supporters and, oddly, observers (academic and pundit) to explain away his resilient connections with his followers with minimal need for elaboration. “Ganyan talaga ’yan si Digong (Digong is really like that),” so enough said.
    After 100 days in office, however, just invoking how much of a singular man of prowess the President is, or how he is the Jeanne D’Arc who is out to save the Republic from drug addicts and supporters of former President Benigno Aquino III, is becoming old hat. The myth is nevertheless well sustained by fake news, the adept use of social media by Duterte fans, and the showbiz aura of Mocha Uson.

    Remove all these layers and what you have is a leader who has very little difference from a lot of local strongmen and bosses who have been the foundation of the political system. Duterte fans the oligarchy, and claims that he “doesn’t consider himself part of the Philippine ruling class or the feudal system.” But his disdain for the old elite (Aquino?) is also matched by his slobbering admiration of the parvenu elites who emerged after World War II, the most prominent of which is the Marcos family. That praise has to do much with family biography.

    The Dutertes were one of the 3 families that lorded over Davao for most of the second half of the 20th century (the others were the Almendras clan before martial law, and the Floirendos – prominent local cronies of President Marcos – during the dictatorship era). The Dutertes were migrants from Danao, Cebu, where Digong’s father had his first taste of politics when President Manuel Roxas appointed him mayor of the city. Vicente Duterte, however, could not spread his wings since, given the sinecure. Danao was the fiefdom of his cousin, Don Ramon Durano. Durano – a former WWII guerilla-like Marcos – had claimed the town as the clan’s base of power, and Vicente had no choice but to look elsewhere to further his political ambitions.

    He found the continuation of his calling in Davao, then one the major landing points of migrants from Central Visayas, many of them fellow Cebuanos like the Dutertes. Vicente jump-started his career by offering his legal services to settlers battling each other and the lumad over land ownership. This was an excellent way to establish a presence (who would not have their property titled?). The Mindanao Times, Davao’s longest running newspaper, was full of accounts of Vicente solving land disputes.

    He was also fortunate to reconnect with another Danao cousin (and another World War II guerrilla), Alejandro Almendras, who was appointed the provincial governor of Davao by President Elpidio Quirino (Davao was then still a special province, and its officials were presidential appointees).

    Almendras’ close patronage ties with Quirino led to the appointment of Vicente as provincial secretary, and then, in 1958, when Almendras was elected to the Senate, Vicente took over as governor. Vicente would hold that position until President Ferdinand Marcos appointed him Secretary of General Services in 1964 (again replacing Almendras who was elected to the Senate).

    The Almendras-Duterte clan remained the unchallenged power of Davao City and Davao province. They would only step down from the pedestal when Marcos declared martial law and gradually promoted his own Davao cronies (the Floirendos). Vicente remained loyal to Marcos, but his wife, Soledad, turned oppositionist (and one of the first Davao Dilawan!) after Ninoy Aquino’s assassination in 1983.

    Even Duterte’s populism is not unique. It was prototypical of Philippine local politics. What Duterte has done is nationalize this local “way of doing politics,” with its associated coercive features, vulgar argot, and a more personalized patronage system. Anyone who grew up with local politicos would know how this system worked: lots of macho braggadocio, where charismatic bosses show how tough they are by drinking mixed-brews of gin, beer, rum, and tuba to impress astonished voters; where cursing is part of the stock of trade in all miting de avances; where one proudly counted ones’ mistresses (a strong woman, however, does not talk about her sex life); and where one issues fistfight or gun-duel challenges to opponents.

    What Digong has done is to bring this local world into the open. Suddenly, the provincial boss is now the national boss. He is a strongman, but his foundations remain to be the clan. And this explains why, one year into his presidency, he has not gone after any of the established political clans of the country, despite his and his subalterns’ claims that he is “para sa bayan (patriotic).” For how can one kill one’s own? –

    Patricio N. Abinales is an OFW. He is a professor of Asian Studies at the University of Hawaii-Manoa. He wrote the book Making Mindanao: Cotabato and Davao in the Formation of the Philippine Nation-State (Ateneo, 2000).

    • – by Vergel O. Santos – Save the democratic institutions? If there’s anyone who needs saving – and needs saving now – it’s us.

      Few phrases pack a load as heavy and as serious as the one used as a theme title for a forum I have just attended: Saving the democratic institutions. It carries the whole burden of freedom, social justice, nationalism, and populism and the rule of the majority – why, it carries the whole burden of democracy itself! Now, how does one even begin to imagine what effort might be required to save all that?

      The more basic and practical questions, I think, are these: What democratic institutions are we really talking about? Did these institutions get erected at all? It seems to me that they have been in fact defying construction; that they have been coming apart even before they could be put together, coming undone before they could get done. In other words, it seems we simply haven’t done a good job of it at all; haven’t even begun to reform our still widely feudal culture in order that freedom and equality may take root and flourish in it.

      Meanwhile, Rodrigo Duterte, the messiah of deliverance by extrajudicial shortcuts, has happened to us, overtaken us. By force of authoritarian character, he has co-opted or cowed or otherwise neutralized the forces capable of holding him in check – the very forces that, properly nurtured, would have developed into democratic institutions.


      But, its own vulnerabilities (money corruption, sexual transgressions) publicly exploited by Duterte, the Church has become timid, thus unable to provide the moral leadership and reinforcement civil society expects from it. Civil society seems in fact to have retreated from the streets and into cyberspace, operating mostly individually, but even there it is drowned out by the unrestrained savagery of Duterte’s hordes of nameless and faceless assassins.

      A catalyst force in past freedom and rights fights, the traditional news media themselves are now divided into the intimidated, the charmed, and the overcautiously critical. It would be consoling hope that, thus divided, they cancel out one another’s potency; but, with Duterte’s social media troops in cyberspace, the battle for civility is lost to perversity and the battle for truth to fakery.

      Surely, Duterte’s confidence does not come only from his narcissism. He knows that no democratic institutions can stop him; he knows that none of them exist. He knew it when he practically surrendered our territorial waters in the South China Sea to China. He knew it when he let his police loose on drug dealers and users in what now, with thousands dead, appears an indiscriminate and brutal campaign. He knew it when he sent his army to Marawi and his airmen up in the sky to drop bombs on that little provincial city. He knew it when he declared martial law for all of Mindanao upon his arbitrary determination that he was up against not just Abu Sayyaf outlaws and rebel renegades, but also ISIS terrorists.

      And doubtless he knows it when he threatens he might just put the whole country under martial law.

      Save the democratic institutions? If there’s anyone who needs saving – and needs saving now – it’s us, and if there’s anyone who can save us it’s us, not any of our democratic institutions.

      Only comment by an Anonymous:

      save your “democracy” by leaving PH. sama mo na ung rappler/

    • sonny

      P. Abinales’ seminal book on Mindanao and Fr. Miguel Bernad’s on the same subject are must-reads on the history of Mindanao.

    • Mariano Renato Pacifico

      After the win of Donald Trump, American media did introspection where they went wrong. Why their polls were defeated by the actual polls in the polling station. The American Media asked where they failed in their polling. Nothing like that with Rappler. Well, Rappler are run by U.P.-graduates. They are Filipinos. Filipinos naturally blame the elected not the electorate electing the elected not those who covered Rodrigo Duterte. Rappler blame the Filipino electorate.

      Rappler should look at themselves in the mirror where they failed in delving who Duterte was and what he would have been if he became President.

      Like those who elected Duterte, they do not blamethemselves they blame Duterte.

      Rappler still have a lot to eat sacks and sacks of rice. They should stop pointing their fingers at others not at themselves as if they were not responsible of putting Duterte in Malacanang.

      I voted for Duterte, I admit I was wrong. I admit I was wrong because that was Rappler led me to believe. I do not blame Duterte. I am the only one to blame. And I blame Rappler and the rest of the Philippine Media. But the media is not owning they were wrong. It is called in the U.S. “ownership”. In the Philippines it is called “blame game”


    Higit 200 na ang patay sa Marawi. Isang buwan na ang giyera.

    Libo-libo na ang lumikas, halos tiyak na wala nang uuwian pa pagkatapos ng bombahan.

    Mga kababayang Muslim ay nagtatago sa bala at kanyon sa gitna ng Ramadhan.

    Ang mga sundalo natin na malayo sa pamilya, walang tulog o pahinga, at laging nakaabang ang isang paa sa hukay. Maraming mahina, sugatan, namatayan ng mistah. Mga kababayang kumakain na ng karton at kumot dahil ilang araw nang walang pagkain.

    Mas marami nang namatay sa sakit kaysa sa bala. Yung DOH, kaya lang i monitor ang 20k na nasa evacuation centers, samantalang 180,000 ang displaced ng labanan.
    Tapos ikaw, isang linggo kang magpapahinga? Rest? Pahuway? Relaks? Downtime? Rejuvenate?! Yan talaga ang napili nyong salita para sa ekskyus letter nya sa bayan?

    Rejuvenate?! Talaga? Alam nyo ba ang imahen ng pagre-rejuvenate? “Younger, fresher, more lively.” Yan ang ginagawa nya habang may aerial bombs? Sana sinabi nyo na lang na naghihingalo na sya, na may mga tubong nakakabit, na kailangang tutukan sa ospital. Baka mas maintindihan pa.

    Pero, lintek. “Don’t you need rest?” hirit ni Abella sa mga nag-uusisa. Downtime? Rest?! Sabihin mo kaya sa mga sundalo at volunteer relief workers yan.

    “Let me disappoint those who may think that he’s sick and may want him sick. He’s not. Definitely,” ang pakutyang sabi pa ng asong si Panelo.

    Sana nga sinabi nyo na lang na naghihingalo na sya.

    Mas mainam na mensahe yun kaysa sa headline na nagsasabing “He is sleeping while Marawi burns.”

    Mga manhid. Saksakan ng manhid.

  • Mariano Renato Pacifico

    President Duterte failed to attend Philippine Independence Day. Philippine Independence is fake Independence.

    On July 4th, the original celebrated Independence Day, was GIVEN to Philippines. In the early 60s some nationalists in the House moved it back to June 12 which was also given by the Americans. July 4th is was downgraded and relegated to be called Filipino-American Friendship day.

    Back in those days, I looked forward to Independence Day. There were military parades. Fighter jets fly low. 21 gun salute. I remember those days vividly and in color. Today there are no show of force.

    The last military “parades” I saw was the declaration of Martial Law. Soldiers with their garand and carbine patrolled our streets like what I saw in Santiago, Chile during American-supported military coup.

    I wonder why Duterte did not attend the fake-Independence Day at Luneta. Why Luneta? That is where Rizal’s monument is located. Chinese Rizal did not liberate Philippines. Chinese Rizal preferred white German national to be his wife over Filipino wife.

    • Josephine Bracken was Irish and born in Hongkong, the daughter of a soldier stationed there.

      Yes, June 12 is because of Macapagal and is about the first attempt at Independence in 1898.

      Since 1998 I think they have Filipino soldiers in 1898-style uniform as part of the ceremonies.

  • – Vicente Rafael:

    On the “new brutality” gripping this post-truth moment: when the “gansterization of the social” is everywhere, and irony is weaponized for maximum insult. Applicable to Trump as well as Duterte. From the Italian philosopher Rosi Braidotti and the editorial board of e-flux. Lots of other interesting articles in the rest of the issue on this topic as well.

    “What we once called civil society has fractured into countless pieces, small and hard—with little civility left between them. For whatever their material particularities, these discursive animatronics share a wholesale rejection of complexity. They induce a systemic leveling-down, a flattening of structural distinctions; they encourage a reduction of subtlety and intelligent or imaginative ambiguities in favor of monosyllabic sound bites, simplifications, and a readiness to insult and humiliate interlocutors. The new brutality is bewildering in its ability to consolidate individual, irrational, and antisocial preferences. The gangsterization of the social sphere by way of structurally rewarding and even monetizing bloodlust and naked cruelty leaves little room for argument. Politics is reduced to picking your own tribe and following a leader who could easily be a sociopath or a pyromaniac. Loyalty is a visceral issue, not a matter of reason: right or wrong, “he” is our man (as the fuss about Trump and Macron’s handshake demonstrated, the gender in this saying is certainly not accidental).”

    • – Vicente Rafael:

      From Richard Javad Heydarian, on the irony of Martial Law in the Philippines: rather than converting the military into his own private police force, as Marcos did, Duterte finds himself confronted with a more professionalized military that he cannot fully control and which might yet become the leading agent for change.

      “The military is fast becoming again a crucial player in Philippine politics. Now that the force has professionalized, this might be all right — except that it’s also a sure sign that the country’s civilian institutions are failing this troubled democracy.”

      • Mariano Renato Pacifico

        Heydarian is out of touch of reality. The Philippine Military is not professional. He doesn’t remember SAF44. Marawi nightmare. Chinese massacre. The PMA-run Military still do investigation by typewriter. Typewriter? Yes, investigation-by-typewriter. Typing affidavits, signed stamped and delivered. Bam! They got evidence!

        Heydarian should qualify military’s “professionalism”. Heydarian must have meant the Military is apolitical but military wise? Strategically wise? They still have a lot to learn. They should stop using gravity bombs. At least they stopped after the bomb glided and exploded where friendlies were hold up.

        • SAF is PNP not military. HK bus massacre was bungling by Manila SWAT.

          I think what Heydarian means with professional is that they will not be a private force for a dictator anymore like during the times of Marcos but just do their job. That they still have a lot to learn is clear. But it looks like they are not as full of bunglers and crooks like the police seem to be.



    This type of alliance-building is consistent with his past as mayor/datu. How did he succeed in Davao? By making a datu’s agreement with–or “befriending”–different groups (NPA, MN, MI, clans, etc), meaning: You can do what you like, you can fight each other, but not in MY territory. Behave in MY territory, and you can enjoy freedom of movement and RnR. Do ME a favor, and I’ll do you a favor in turn.

    This can work at the local level–it may have worked in Davao during a turbulent time of post-Marcos armed conflict–but at the national level? With him as commander in chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines?

    Compare what he said in November (this article) with what he next said in December (Wallace Business Forum speech) and with what is happening now.


      They say that loyalty to Duterte is an emotional decision, not a rational one. And yet we still engage in reason.

      They say Duterte loyalists have their own “alternative facts,” their own “alternative media,” and their own “alternative reality” and won’t believe what is inconvenient to them. And yet we continue to cite only legitimate news sources.

      They say that Duterte supporters have their own echo chamber in social media–as do we–with each side hearing only from like-minded supporters. And yet we still voice our dissent.

      They say Duterte support all about personality politics, regionalism, and religious block voting. And yet we still oppose political dynasties and blind idolatry of every sort, even among our own allies.

      We witness death threats, rape threats, insults, and lies become the accepted norm within Duterte supporters. And yet we speak out undeterred.

      Support for Duterte is a spectrum. It’s not black and white.

      There are fascist fanatics. There are paid trolls, bullies, and bots.

      But there are also those who supported him out of loyalty to family. There are those who supported him based on just his stand on one key issue. There are those who were lied to and believed those lies. There are those with still healthy skepticism.

      Regardless, we will continue to champion truth and reason without expecting to convert anyone.

      Regardless, we will continue to speak truth and reason because they deserve to be spoken, they deserve to be heard, and they deserve to be acted upon.

      It’s not about who they are. It’s about who we are.

  • – Philip Jr. Lustre:

    THEY AREN’T DIGOONS FOR NOTHING. We wouldn’t be calling them the digoons for no reason at all. These keyboard thugs are programmed to think that the sick old man of the South would do no wrong. Any criticism of their lord and master would be regarded an affront to the country, believing that the sick old man is the country. Any critical comment would be met with ferocious replies that are largely illogical and impolite.

    Take the issue of Independence Day celebrations, When I wrote yesterday my criticism that the unusual absence of the sick old man dd not augur well to our traditional way to celebrate the Independence Day, certain digoons intruded my wall to say that I and other critical netizens were creating and fomenting “disunity” in the country. So I was fomenting disunity by pointing out that the sick old man was a day-sleeper, a sluggard to rise up in the morning and lead the celebration of our nationhood? Jeez, I couldn’t believe it.

    Those digoons obviously did not understand the meaning of Independence Day. Their limited mind could not comprehend that this day is a single momentous event that has given rise to our nationhood. It commemorates our birth as a nation. In other countries, their own independence day is celebrated with all pomp and vigor. Their own heads of state and government lead the celebration and issue statement of profound significance to their citizens. Not in our country, where the sick old man is too sick to get up and lead the early morning celebratory rites.

    So who is fomenting disunity? Who is creating havoc in our beloved country? These keyboard goons are the ones who are doing it. By spouting poison in social media and elsewhere, by spewing words of hatred and derision, by promoting a culture of malice through fake news, by spreading ill will, and by instigating violence, these digoons want to divide and bring back to power those plunderers and rapists of our country, those people who once stole our dreams and aspirations, and destroyed our democratic institutions. Hence, we have to be vigilant and resolute to counter their machinations. We should never rest.

  • Mariano Renato Pacifico

    Philippines is not independent yet.
    1. Filipinos still speaks colonized languages;
    2. They still love colonized looks;
    3. Pray colonizers religion;
    4. Work for colonizers;
    5. Proud of their pictures taken with the colonizers;
    6. Proud to be called Don and Dona;
    7. Pay homage to colonizer’s countries;
    8. Majority of Filipinos fly to colonizer’s country to surrender and apply for re-colonization so their lives can be re-run by colonist like heaven instead of liberated-independent Filipinos like hell;
    9. Philippine independence was given on a silver platter not won;
    10. Despite Filipino claim of independence they still love their colonists skin, looks, language and culture;
    11. Pilgrimge to colonist country is a show of success;
    12. Filipino Crooks go to colonist country because the colonist justice is fair most of the time;

    ARE FILIPINOS INDEPENDENT? Nope. They will be independent until they learn to love themselves … until I do not hear those patriotic jingles in ABS-CBN, Pilipino Ako.

    • Mostly true, MRP – even applying towards the new possible masters, the Chinese, or why do so many Filipinas whiten their skin with gluta to look like Chinitas?

      That modern Chinese-looking ideal would have Korina as an example. Even Duterte’s reactions towards the USA, EU etc. show enormous defensiveness.

      If he were sure of himself, he would just say who cares, I do my thing my way. But he has to act like a gangsta rapper to prove a point.

      And what kind of nation does a President want to create who acts like a barangay captain, only there for HIS supporters?

      Pictures from some Duterte pages remind me of albums from Filipino overseas associations, “pictures namin”. So?

      That is just a barkada-type unity, nothing really national that leads to real independence I think.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>