Category Archives: Politics

Qwertyman No. 141: Purity and Perfection

Posted on by
Reply

Qwertyman for Monday, April 14, 2025

LAST WEEK, former Commission on Audit Commissioner and senatorial candidate Heidi Mendoza—a staunch exponent of good governance and nemesis of crooks—drew flak from some people who would have been her natural allies on the liberal side of the political spectrum: the LGBTQ community. At issue was her expressed disagreement with same-sex marriage, as a personal belief she did not seek to impose on anyone else. That still wasn’t enough for some same-sex marriage advocates, who announced their withdrawal of their support for her candidacy.

Of course both Heidi and her detractors have a right to their opinions, but I can’t help thinking that the only people chuckling at this situation are avatars of neither good governance nor gender rights, but the enemies of both.

Heidi Mendoza hasn’t been alone in this position of being seen to have been right on many things but wrong on—well, something, but something big enough to destroy and erase whatever good they’d done before. “Being seen” is important here, because it’s a matter of perception; like beauty, “wrongness” is in the eyes of the beholder. 

Today’s social media is populated by such beholders who can’t wait to see personalities make what they deem to be mistakes, and often to point those out with all the hawkish attentiveness of dancesport judges and the ruthless certitude of Pharisees. 

I’m sure you’ve come across many more such instances of people whom you thought you knew and whose ideas you had largely agreed with, only to find them—suddenly one morning—the object of the nastiest vitriol the Internet can be capable of dishing. Once blood is spotted in the water, the sharks start circling and a feeding frenzy follows. Many comments simply echo the previous one, seeking to be even louder and crueler; little attention is paid to context and nuance.

Witness what has happened just these past few weeks:

A political scientist and commentator who had grown a substantial following for his liberal positions got skewered for comparing Mindanao to sub-Saharan Africa. Never mind his explanatory reference to a scholarly study which made that comparison based on certain criteria. In the verbal shorthand of a TV interview, the soundbite was all that mattered to many.

An expert on infectious diseases—globally recognized in that field—was savaged for opining that former President Rodrigo Duterte should have been tried by a Philippine court instead of being bundled off to The Hague. Never mind that the good doctor made it clear that he was against EJK and all the wrongs that the old man is now in the dock for. Netizens seemed to take it against him that he tried to explain how many Mindanawons felt about Duterte, and that he had worked under that administration to help stop Covid during the pandemic.

A prominent journalist and exponent of ethical journalism—also a fervent convert to evangelical Christianity—upset and lost many friends when he declared his disagreement with the idea of transgender athletes competing with their biological counterparts. (It was a view shared by a former student of mine, a lawyer and legal scholar of the same religious persuasion.) This man’s longstanding commitment to the truth and to justice seemed trivial compared to what he had to say on this one issue.

No doubt these issues are centrally important to some, the litmus test by which they judge people’s character and their “true colors.” But which color is truly “true”—the mass of blue or the spot of yellow? And what effect does single-issue politics have on the big picture?

I wonder what all those Arab-Americans who withheld their vote for Kamala Harris because she didn’t sound pro-Palestinian enough are thinking now that the man they effectively helped return to power is speaking unabashedly about Gaza as “an incredible piece of real estate.” I know that some continue to insist that they did the right thing in holding on to the one issue that mattered to them, and of course it was their right to do so. But I can’t help thinking of all those Fil-Ams who trumpeted the Orange Guy’s alleged support for the rights of the unborn, in disregard of all the pain and misery he’s causing to the born. 

Me, I’m as liberal as they come, with all of that word’s pitfalls and contradictions. I believe in civil liberties and human rights, in free speech, in freedom from censorship, in the equal application of the law for all. I also support divorce, same-sex marriage, abortion rights, transgender rights, and gun control. I stand neither with Zionists nor Hamas but for peace for the people of Israel and Palestine. I believe in and pray to God—a God who is good and just—but mistrust organized religion and both extreme Right and Left (indeed, anyone who claims to know how life should be lived) and resist doctrine of any kind, whether Church, State, or Party. If you’re my FB friend and you find any of these too reprehensible for comfort, feel free to unfriend me, or to stop reading this column. 

I have to admit that, following major upheavals like the 2022 election and the Duterte arrest, I’ve lightened my roster of Facebook friends by offloading a number of characters whose preferences I loathed. I didn’t have any qualms about that, because they were “friends” only in the shallowest Facebook sense of the word. (I find Facebook useful, but blame it for its degradation and devaluation of “friendship.”) Most had never interacted with me, and neither of us would miss the other.

But there are friends you have in real life who are arguably worth more than their politics or religion. By this I don’t mean that they fatten your bank account or make your life easier (although some might); if anything, they remind us how much more complicated people and life can be, and how ideological purity or moral perfection may ultimately be less important (and certainly more boring) than the challenge of finding some common ground and surviving together. In continuing to talk with them, we talk with ourselves and those parts of us still capable of doubt and wonder. 

So disagree as I may with her on this particular point, I’m voting for Heidi Mendoza. I suspect I stand a better chance of convincing her to support same-sex marriage than of straightening out the crooks and dimwits eager to take her place in our already benighted Senate.

Qwertyman No. 139: Filipinos for Nothing

Posted on by
Reply

Qwertyman for Monday, March 31, 2025

THERE’S A part of me that wants to stop beating up on the Dutertes, lest I be accused of being part of the Marcos propaganda machine (which stands to benefit from all this anyway, whatever I say), but like the gift that keeps on giving, the D’s and their people just won’t let me let them be. Being no lawyer, I’ll have nothing to say on the legality or otherwise of the former President’s arrest and forced departure for the Netherlands—except to opine, as others have, that justice sometimes works in mysterious ways.

My beef for this week is how the Duterte Agitprop Department (let’s call it DAD, like Elon Musk’s DOGE) has spun the whole ICC affair in the public sphere. These days, you never expect people to stand on the truth and nothing but the truth in these political matters. But you do hope for s0me degree of sophistication, for the kind of professional finesse that will justify the multimillions that any PR crew tasked with saving Rodrigo Duterte’s skin—or barring that, at least his reputation—will have been budgeted.

There are three propositions by the Duterte camp that I want to focus on, among many others that have arisen since the arrest.

First, his supposed global allies and endorsers. 

Donald Trump, for example, reportedly took precious time out from dismantling American democracy to declare that “We will protect Rodrigo and the Filipino people from the oppression you are facing…. I and the United States will not allow any of our allies and friends to suffer, and we will impose sanctions against the Marcos Administration for the unlawful act they did.” Why, he had even called Xi Jinping—not about tariffs, not about Taiwan, not about American forces in the Philippines—but about the “serious matter concerning our good friend Rodrigo.” For his part, Xi Jinping—who on a state visit to Manila did say “Our relations have now seen a rainbow after the rain” in response to Duterte’s more prosaic “I simply love Xi Jinping!”—supposedly brought up the Duterte arrest and the ICC in his opening address to the Boao Forum for Asia. Not to be outdone, another Duterte hero, Vladimir Putin, was reported to have threatened (someone—not specified) with “grave consequences” for Duterte’s arrest, as it violated the Rome Statute (which Russia incidentally pulled out of in 2016).

It’s all good when a national leader of superlative virtue and achievement has been so badly wronged that the world takes notice and his peers rise up in alarm to protest the injustice. But really—Donald Trump, Xi Jinping, and Vladimir Putin, all of them prime candidates for the ICC’s hospitality (Putin already is, along with Benjamin Netanyahu)? Never mind that all these supposed endorsements turned out to be fake; they still elicited applause from the DDS faithful, which I suppose was the intended effect. Q: Would it have been too much to expect an endorsement from the likes of Pope Francis? A: Yes.

Second, that call for OFWs to stop remitting their earnings home in a “Zero-Remittance Week” protest.

Our overseas workers contributed nearly $40 billion to the Philippine economy last year, so someone at DAD must have figured it would be brilliant to prick that bubble in the name of remitting Duterte home. But yet again, really? 

Granted, PRRD created the Department of Migrant Workers and the OFW Bank, and brought home hundreds of thousands of OFWs during the pandemic. Former OWWA chief Hans Cacdac even called him “the father of OFWs.” I don’t doubt that the Duterte name has a lot of traction in our expatriate communities, and that flexing a bit of their economic power in a week-long protest will ring some alarm bells, but you might as well ask people to chop off a finger to prove their fealty. For how long do you imagine will Pinoys postpone housing amortizations, tuition payments, maintenance meds, and grocery expenses to protest even the crucifixion of Jesus Christ?

Lastly, and perhaps closest to my propagandist’s heart, there’s that inexplicably vague “I am not a Filipino for nothing” slogan.

Sure, it sounds brave and bold—like it actually says and means something. But does it, really? I’ve been turning the statement around and around in my head and maybe I’m extraordinarily dense and unreceptive but I just don’t get it. In rhetoric, double negatives are often used to suggest or even emphasize the opposite (the technical term is “litotes,” as in “That’s not a bad idea” or “She’s hardly destitute”). 

Rarely do double negatives make good copy for T-shirts and streamers, if you want to rally the masses. Well, there was Winston Churchill’s “We shall never surrender” (arguably a double negative) speech on the occasion of the Battle of Britain in June 1940, but that statement was preceded by a string of powerful positives: “We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall never surrender.”

Ninoy Aquino—who must be rolling in his grave at being compared to Digong Duterte—famously said “The Filipino is worth dying for,” a slogan ironically made all the more resonant by the fact that it turned out to be self-fulfilling. I doubt that Duterte will carry his emulation to that extreme, but he or his handlers can learn from its clarity and brevity, which contribute to its emotional appeal. “I am not a Filipino for nothing” means, well, nothing. It says nothing about freedom, justice, peace, love, patriotism, godliness, courage, or integrity—none of the grand ideals and ideas that our heroes exemplified. Might it be because these notions were never really associated with a president whom we best remember for his crude expletives and constant exhortations to kill? 

“Sampalin ang ICC!” sounds much more honestly him. It still sounds lame, especially given where he is right now, but it seems more purposeful, and should look good on a green T-shirt.

Qwertyman No. 138: Dutch Entertainment

Posted on by
Reply

Qwertyman for Monday, March 24, 2025

AS I’VE mentioned here before, I was a prisoner once—under martial law, for more than seven months, when I was eighteen. I had been arrested without a warrant for unspecified offenses against the State, on the strength of an Arrest, Search, and Seizure Order (ASSO) issued by Defense Secretary Juan Ponce Enrile. ASSOs were literally a catch-all piece of paper, meant to capture anyone whose face the regime didn’t like. I was sleeping at home when military agents barged in, and scooped me up in front of my terrified parents.

Our prison stood on a patch of land where the upscale BGC stands now; when we looked out at night we could see the neon lights of Guadalupe flashing. We had a small library in the back, TV in the mess hall, chess, calisthenics, and rumor-mongering for entertainment. It wasn’t too bad when there were just 40 of us occupying two Army barracks in the early months of martial law, but when we grew to over 200, the harsh realities of prison life set in, and people began escaping through the barbed wire.

These recollections came back to me last week as I thought about the surprise arrest and deportation of former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte to a holding cell in the Netherlands while awaiting trial by the International Criminal Court.

By any legal reckoning, he’s going to be there for a while—he won’t be arraigned until September—so like it or not he’s going to have to adjust to his new abode over the next few months, like we had to in Bicutan.

His subalterns and supporters can make all the noise they want outside his prison, in the Philippines, and wherever in the world a DDS chapter exists, but RRD’s time ahead in Scheveningen will be largely spent in quiet and solitude.

From what we’ve seen online of his holding cell, Digong’s digs aren’t plush by any standard, but seem fairly adequate and comfortable—just spare enough to suggest to its occupant that he is in some kind of retreat, where he can ponder his worldly actions and contemplate the afterlife. Indeed the room—with its military cot and washbasin—evokes priestly economy, in stark contrast to the sybaritic excesses its previous tenants must have been accustomed to in their prime. In fairness to the incumbent, that lifestyle is something he has never been associated with; part of his popular appeal stems from his image as a man used to sleeping on hard beds and dining on the simplest fare.

There is a large flat-screen TV in the room, through which Digong can follow the news of the world and—given the way that world is going—feel upheld in his conviction that a hard fist and a knock on the head always makes things right. His heroes—Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Jinping (notably the same despots “quoted” by his trolls as expressing their support for him, like character references)—seem to be doing all right, keeping the world safe from the rule of law.

He might learn that the Dutch music industry is undergoing a boom on the strength of songs like “Anxiety” by Doechii and “Guilty” by Teddy Swims. Football, tennis, and golf are the favorite sports of the Dutch, although Digong might also be amused by a Frisian sport called klootschieten, which involves throwing a ball and sometimes drawing blood. Dutch cinema is a small industry, but The Punisher should still be thrilled by local crime classics like “Murder Story” (1989), “Gangsterboys” (2010), and “Accused” (2014).

Should RRD prefer interesting human conversation, I doubt he’s going to get it from the likes of Harry Roque, whose own tribulations must be coming out of Digong’s ears (“I want to go home, and you want to come here?”). If there are any CPP-NDF holdouts left in Utrecht, I’m sure they’ll have  a lot to talk about on a prison visit, going back to the Left’s early flirtation with their “nationalist” ally.

But truth to tell, if I were the former President, I would spend my time in Scheveningen writing my memoirs. I wrote a novel about my government-sponsored Airbnb experience, but given his bluntness, fiction probably won’t be RRD’s best suit.

I suspect Digong is a lot more articulate and maybe even more urbane than he lets on, because no Chief Executive could possibly be that vulgar and that ill-mannered without it being an act (you can imagine him rehearsing those PI’s before the SONA and turning up his collar to look even more roguish). All his life, he has presented himself to be a man of menace, projecting unforgiving brutality, steeping his hands into a cauldron of boiling blood to strike fear into his foes—but couldn’t all that have been just a show in the name of, uhm, good governance? 

The alternative narrative could go thus: In truth and deep at heart, all by his lonesome in his corner of the darkened Palace, he may have been a sensitive and tortured soul whose conscience reared and roared with every fresh report of another tokhang victim, who felt the anguish of every wife and mother like a stab to his own tender heart. He had done what he had to do for the noblest of purposes—the salvation of his suffering people from the stupor of narcotics (about which he knew something himself, but it was only to ease the pain from a motoring accident—all other uses were criminal).

RRD’s memoirs would not only be a spirited defense of his life—an apologia pro vita sua, as they used to be called—but a full, tell-all accounting of everything everyone ever did: henchmen, enemies, beneficiaries, and erstwhile allies alike. If he says he can’t get justice at the Hague, then at least he can dispense some of it from the safety of his albeit involuntary confinement.

Now that would not only be edifying but entertaining, wouldn’t it?

Qwertyman No. 137: ICC Ex Machina

Posted on by
Reply

Qwertyman for Monday, March 17, 2025

IN PLAYWRITING and fiction, we call it deus ex machina—literally, the “god out of the machine”—which has come to mean a miraculously happy or fortuitous ending to a long and agonizing drama. 

You’ll find it, for example, when a virginal heroine—beleaguered by dirty old men and rapacious creditors—seems on the brink of yielding her precious virtue, tearfully praying on her knees for deliverance, when a kindly lawyer comes knocking on her door to announce that a distant uncle has passed away, leaving her his fortune. We rejoice with her—despite feeling, at the same time, that divine intervention came a bit too conveniently. This is why I admonish my students to refrain from employing deus ex machina in their stories, because in today’s hard-bitten and cynical world, nobody really believes in it anymore, and readers simply feel deprived of a more rational ending.

Like many things we know about drama, the idea goes back to the ancient Greeks, whose playwrights used it to great effect, Aeschylus and Euripides among them. Euripides most memorably turned to deus ex machina in Medea, where the title character—having been cheated on by her husband Jason—kills Jason’s mistress and their own two children. Guilty both of murder and infanticide, Medea seems hopeless and bound for damnation—until a machine, actually a crane shaped like a chariot drawn by dragons, emerges from behind the stage. It has been sent by Medea’s grandfather, the sun-god Helios, to pluck Medea away from her husband and from the coils of human justice and deliver her to the safety of Athens.

Was it fair of the gods to save Medea from the punishment awaiting her on earth? It’s arguable, but more than a device to resolve a messy plot, the “god out of the machine” was meant to remind the Athenian audience that a higher order of justice obtained, and that when humanity became too entangled in its own predicaments, then it was time for the gods to take over.

A lot of this swept through my mind last week as the drama of Rodrigo Duterte’s arrest and express delivery to the International Criminal Court at the Hague played out on TV and social media. Had the gods come out of the machine to impose divine justice? It had seemed nearly impossible a few years ago, when Digong was still flaunting his untouchability and taunting the ICC to come and get him. Well, we all know what happened since then—and they did. 

We understand just as well that the Marcos administration performed this operation not out of some abounding sense of justice or because it had suddenly acquired a conscience and realized the evil with which it had “uniteamed” to electoral victory in 2022. “We did what we had to do,” President Marcos Jr. explained on TV, with deadpan truthfulness—referring superficially to the Philippines’ obligation to honor its commitment to Interpol, but subtextually to the irresistible opportunity to cripple someone who had become a political arch-enemy, and providentially gain the support of masses of people harmed and disaffected by Duterte’s butchery.

The outswelling of that support—at least for Digong’s arrest and deportation—was spontaneous and sincere. Not since the Marcoses’ departure at EDSA had I felt such relief and exhilaration—and surely the irony would not have been lost on BBM, who knows what it was like to leave on a jetplane, kicking and dragging, for an uncertain future.

And what I say next may go against the grain of everything I have said and thought about the Marcoses, but no matter what ulterior motives may have come into play in this episode of the Duterte-ICC saga, I feel thankful for the resolve and the dispatch that BBM showed in this instance. Along with his administration’s resistance to Chinese aggression in the West Philippine Sea, this will be certain to count among his most positive achievements. 

The great difference between this drama and Medea, as an example of deus ex machina, is that the intervention of the ICC (with BBM helpfully providing the crane) isn’t going to save Duterte, but rather the people whom his presidency soaked in blood. But as with Medea, the “gods” step in when local justice proves impotent or inadequate (and did anyone really believe that Duterte would be hauled before and convicted in a Philippine court of law, when even the Maguindanao Massacre took a full decade to produce convictions for the principals?).

The question now is what next—not for The Great Punisher, for whom a prolonged trial at a cushy court will not be punishment enough, but for the Marcos administration, which suddenly finds itself with more political capital at its disposal, and yet also put itself at greater risk? Surely it must also realize that it not only has committed itself to tearing down the entire House of Duterte and confronting the many millions of voters they still represent, but that it has also set itself up for higher expectations, on pain of suffering the same ignominious fate?

In the hopeful bit of theater playing in my mind, I imagine BBM parlaying the bonus of goodwill he has earned from this maneuver into a broader if not genuine resolution to distance himself further from his predecessor and create a freer and more just society. There are clear and immediate steps he can take in this direction. The first gesture would be the release of all remaining political prisoners, followed by the abolition of the NTF-ELCAC, which no longer serves any useful purpose (not that it ever did). He can root out and punish the enablers and perpetrators of Oplan Tokhang and eliminate oppression and corruption from the mindset of Philippine law enforcement. And then he can begin reforming Philippine governance, starting with the quality of the people he seeks to bring to power—senators, congressmen, and the like.

But then that would be the ultimate deus ex machina, and we have been shaped by experience into a stubbornly disbelieving lot.

Qwertyman No. 135: Fighting the Truth

Posted on by
Reply

Qwertyman for Monday, March 3, 2025

BEAR WITH me as I begin this Monday’s piece with a quotation about last week’s celebration (or non-celebration, from another point of view) of the 1986 EDSA People Power uprising. It really doesn’t say anything we haven’t heard before, but I want you to read it slowly, giving it the full benefit of its sincerity and passion. If you were at EDSA as I and my family were, and no matter how distant a memory those four days in February may seem to be now, these words should still provoke even a flutter of patriotic fervor, and a wistful thought that, perhaps, the EDSA spirit does live on in these troubled times. 

“Martial law, declared by Ferdinand Marcos Sr. in 1972, left a dark legacy; countless lives were lost, freedoms were stripped away, and power was concentrated in the hands of a few. As we remember those who suffered and fought for our liberties, we must remain vigilant, especially now, when the threat of authoritarian rule once again looms over our nation. People Power was more than just a revolution; it was a testament to the collective strength of the Filipino people in demanding truth, justice, and accountability. It is also a reminder that we must remain united against any form of oppression…. Let us honor its legacy by ensuring that history is never distorted, our rights are never trampled upon, and our democracy remains intact for future generations. May the darkest times in our history never happen again.”

Just the kind of resonant exhortation you’d expect from a staunch defender of civil liberties and human rights, right? 

But would your appreciation of these words change just a bit if you knew that they were spoken not by the likes of a Leila de Lima or a Kiko Pangilinan, but by Davao City Mayor Sebastian “Baste” Duterte, whose EDSA Day message this just happened to be?

Truth? Justice? Accountability? “United against any form of oppression?” Where were these noble words when the good mayor’s dad was president, and announcing blatantly on various occasions that ““My order is shoot to kill you. I don’t care about human rights…. Let’s kill another 32 every day. Maybe we can reduce what ails this country…. I will assume full legal responsibility…. My mouth has no due process.”

That “legal responsibility,” of course, has yet to be assumed, full or otherwise. Instead, once he fell out of power, that man (and, last we heard, lawyer) who flaunted his wanton disregard of the law suddenly found religion, and the gumption to say this when his buddy Apollo Quiboloy and his cult followers were raided by the police:

“Our country has never been in a more tragic state as it is today. Rights have been trampled upon and our laws, derided…. We call on the remaining decent and patriotic members of our government not to allow themselves to be used and to be abusive and violent in enforcing illegal orders…. We call on all Filipinos, regardless of political persuasion, to offer prayers for peace and justice, and to spare our people of the unwarranted tension brought about by the reign of fear and terror by people sworn to uphold the law and protect the citizens of this country.”

It makes sense that this statement was published rather than spoken, because I can’t for the life of me imagine how The Great Punisher could say “unwarranted tension brought about by the reign of fear and terror” with a straight face and not burst out laughing—or maybe his listeners would, if they weren’t seized by, well, fear and terror.

Not to be outdone, on a recent sortie to Cebu, embattled Vice President Sara Duterte reportedly declined to answer questions about her impending impeachment trial in the Senate, preferring to leave the matter to her lawyers, but was quoted as saying that she was banking on her “loyalty to truth” to see her through. Ummm, okay…. Now can we please hear the truth, and nothing but the truth, about Mary Grace Piattos?

I suppose it’s a sign of how low the value of words like “truth,” “freedom,” and “justice’ have fallen when the very people accused of spitting them into the garbage now spout them like nobody’s business. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that they’re doing this, given the success of Donald Trump at doing the very thing he says he hates, e.g. weaponizing the justice system. There must be pages of advice in the 21st century edition of Playbook for Politicians for just this kind of brazenness, maybe under the Chapter “Reversals of Fortune.” What’s surprising—and scary—is how they continue to be believed by followers such as “Ging C.” whose fervor led her to gush, on PRRD’s FB page, “By God’s favor VP Sara you will win this fight. God of truth is on your side and those people who fight the truth!” (Ooops….there’s a “for” missing there somewhere, but really, does it matter anymore?)

And lest we think only the Dutertes have mastered the art of dissimulation, let me leave you to guess who the character implicated in the following quotes is.

On Independence Day in 2018, someone posted on Facebook that “Freedom is every human being’s birthright. But to claim that right, the time always comes when we are called to fight for and defend that freedom. The Philippines and her people fought long and hard, sacrificed life, limb, treasure and more to achieve our independence 120 years ago. The call for liberty and sovereignty was answered by our heroic ancestors, sacrificing their all at the altar of honor and freedom and country.

“Today we remember, and in remembering, we consecrate that memory of all the courageous and selfless Filipino patriots—our heroes—who gave their lives for that freedom, and to whom we forever owe our status as a free, independent and sovereign nation in the community of nations. Let them long live in our minds, our hearts, in our very souls, the heroes of our great country, our beloved Philippines.”

In a speech before the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas last November, the guest of honor declared that “Now, more than ever, our democracy depends on an informed and vigilant citizenry…. With the 2025 elections ahead, I am committed to protecting our journalists in championing fearless and credible reporting. Together with KBP and our partners in media, we will stand firm against disinformation, ensuring that every Filipino has access to voices of truth.”

I would love to cry “Amen!” Wouldn’t you?

Qwertyman No. 134: “Forthwith” and Other Adverbs

Posted on by
Reply

Qwertyman for Monday, February 24, 2025

NEVER IN our modern political history has so much seemed to depend on the meaning and interpretation of one word. For the past week, politicians, lawyers, and columnists like me have weighed in with their sense of “forthwith,” as it appears in Article XI, Section 3, paragraph 1 of our 1987 Constitution, which states that “In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.”

At bar is the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, which is hanging in the balance with the complaint signed by more than enough congressmen and forwarded to the Senate for action “forthwith.” That happened just before the Senate adjourned, whereupon Senate President Chiz Escudero announced that, hold your horses, we’re on break here with seven of our members trying to get their jobs back, and there’s a bunch of other things we need to do before the trial even starts like getting properly fitted for our judicial robes, so we’ll see you in June after the SONA. As an aside to the House, Escudero also wondered aloud why Congress was rushing him, when they had two months to get the damn thing signed and sent over. No, he insisted, “forthwith” doesn’t mean “right now”; it means “when we’re ready.”

This flew in the face of opinions by such as retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna, who argued that an impeachment wasn’t tied to the legislative calendar, and that the Senate was constitutionally bound to convene on the complaint. Minority Leader Sen. Koko Pimentel agreed, calling on Escudero to at least convene a caucus to discuss the trial.

English-major nerds like me should live for moments like this. I can fantasize about being called as an expert witness to speak to the etymology and meaning of “forthwith,” whereupon I would have sagely advised Their Honors that “Round the middle of the twelfth century, the phrase forth mid appeared (mid being essentially the same as the modern German word mit, with), later forth with, to go somewhere in the company of other people. Necessarily, if you go forth with others, you go at the same time as they do. It seems this sense of time eventually took over, though the process of transition isn’t very clear, and it’s mixed up with other phrases that also referred to time. Certainly, by about 1450 the phrase had condensed to a single adverb with the modern meaning of immediately, without delay.” Did I know that all along? Of course not. I googled it and lifted it from a source only named “Hugo.”

It does point to an interesting fact about language, however—meanings change over time, and, depending on the context, can be bent to suit one’s purposes and perceptions. While all modern dictionaries will say that “forthwith” means “immediately,” lawyers and judges (yes, that sneaky lot, with all due respect to my lawyer-friends) have opined that “surrounding circumstances” could loosen things up a bit. One Canadian commentator has noted that “Some courts have determined that the word ‘forthwith’ requires vigorous action, without any delay, and have suggested that whether there has been such action is a question of fact, having regard to the circumstances of the particular case. Others have suggested it means the action must be taken without pause or delay, or done at once, while some judges have commented that the nature of the act to be done is to be taken into consideration when determining the required immediacy…. The term ‘as soon as possible’ has been defined as meaning no more than ‘without reasonable delay’ or ‘within a reasonable time.’ Some cases have suggested that the length of the period of time involved for performance is subject to a reasonableness standard rather than a sense of urgency, and may be influenced by trade practice, custom and other circumstances.”

So if this “reasonableness standard” were to apply in the matter of Sara Duterte, would SP Chiz’s reluctance to convene the Senate now as an impeachment court be reasonable? Not being a lawyer, I’ll leave the legality or constitutionality of it to those who know better—even if, as we can see, it’s lawyer vs. lawyer in this case. I did learn from another retired SC Justice (not Azcuna) that the impeachment process does require many preliminaries before the actual trial, including reviewing the rules of the Senate—and let’s not forget the robes, which the SP emphasizes (at P6,000-P8,000 each) will have to be dry-cleaned by the senator-judges themselves, to save the Senate money (a laudable show of thriftiness, given that the new Senate building in Taguig is now expected to cost over P30 billion). 

What’s apparent to this pedestrian observer is that whatever “forthwith” means, it didn’t happen, at least not the way our framers probably intended it. We’ll be in for a few more months of what Henry Kissinger creatively called “constructive ambiguity” aka fudging, while the senatorial candidates (at least those not identified with the Dutertes) avoid the issue.

“I’ve yet to see and consider the complaint,” at least one reelectionist senator has said, likely echoing others. “If I’m going to sit as a senator-judge, then I wouldn’t want to prejudge the issue” has been another refrain. It’s a reasonable—and highly convenient—stance to take, especially during this election season.

By kicking the impeachment down the road, the Senate avoids making it an election issue for those candidates who need to straddle the fence for their survival. While the House complaint signed by 215 out of 316 congressmen might suggest that the VP’s goose is cooked, the Senate is a different arena altogether, with the present numbers inclined toward Sara’s acquittal. How the administration will tip that balance in its favor will be the game to watch (an AKAP-laden budget can’t hurt). The Dutertes don’t help themselves any with their proclivity to “kill” their enemies, but any assumption that they’re politically done for will be very foolish.

We’re told that impeachments are political more than anything, which means there should be political consequences for all involved. We wish the process had begun much earlier, a month or two ahead of the campaign period, so we could have partly based our senatorial choices on their performance as jurors, and their quality of mind.

Since “forthwith” didn’t happen, let’s hope that the trial, whenever it takes place, involves two other adverbs:

“Expeditiously,” so we can all return to our normal lives (at least until the next scandal—or, God forfend, the next impeachable official, comes along); and

“Fairly,” with incontrovertible evidence, so there will be no question afterward that the right thing was done. 

Qwertyman No. 133: The Finest of the Filipino

Posted on by
Reply

Qwertyman for Monday, February 17, 2025

FOLLOWING THROUGH on my recent piece about our Senate becoming a family show, our constitutionalists probably had the right idea when they decided to amend the Charter in 1940 to provide for a Senate that would draw its members not from provinces or regions but from the country at large. (Under the Americans, Filipino senators were elected based on senatorial districts or groupings of provinces corresponding roughly to our regions today.)

It would have been a way to diminish regionalism and promote the sense of a nation in whose interest these senators would serve. With a countrywide electorate to woo, senatorial candidates would presumably address a broad range of national and even international concerns beyond the parochial claims of their native communities. It was a call to greatness. 

Time was when we had a Senate like that, when men and women with deep intellect, a sense of history, and the gift of articulation spoke to the issues that mattered to the Filipino people and their future. 

One such senator was Jose W. Diokno, who later in his life could speak inspiring words like these:

“There is one dream that all Filipinos share: that our children may have a better life than we have had. So there is one vision that is distinctly Filipino: the vision to make this country, our country, a nation for our children.

“A noble nation, where homage is paid not to who a man is or what he owns, but to what he is and what he does.

“A proud nation, where poverty chains no man to the plow, forces no woman to prostitute herself and condemns no child to scrounge among garbage.

“A free nation, where men and women and children from all regions and with all kinds of talents may find truth and play and sing and laugh and dance and love without fear.”

And then there was Sen. Jovito R. Salonga, who broke the 11-11 tie in the Senate to expel the US military bases from the Philippines in 1991 with these musings:

“I think all of us are engaged in a search—a search for the soul of the nation, a quest for the best in the Filipino character, a search for the true Filipino spirit.

“We summon the memories of those we honor, from Jose Rizal to Andres Bonifacio, from Jose Abad Santos to Ninoy Aquino.

“Their collective message, even on the eve of their death, was one of hope, not of fear; of faith, not of doubt; of confidence in the capacity of the Filipino to suffer and overcome, not of his unwillingness to stand the rigors of freedom and independence.

“In our history as a nation, our best years were when we took our destiny in our own hands and faced the uncertain future with boldness and faith. Those were the times when we experienced a sense of national renewal and self-respect…. 

“Therefore, I vote no to this treaty, and if it were only possible, I would vote 203 million times no.”

There are those who will say that these are just words, and that we don’t elect senators to make fancy speeches, that the Senate should be more than a debate society. I would agree—except that these senators were far more than orators; they worked hard to craft and pass important laws, many of which we still benefit from today.

A genius who topped both the CPA and bar exams, Diokno was behind pro-Filipino laws such as the Investment Incentives Act of 1967 that empowered local businessmen so we could move out of import substitution and the Oil Industry Commission Act of 1971 regulated the oil industry. Named Outstanding Senator many times over, he later set up the Free Legal Assistance Group.

Another bar topnotcher and a genuine war hero tortured by the Japanese, Salonga authored the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Government Employees and the Anti-Plunder Law. He was staunch defender of freedom and civil liberties all his life.

When I look at the list of candidates running for the Senate this year, and at the surveys predicting the seemingly inevitable victory of a number of them, I deeply doubt that the likes of Pepe Diokno and Jovy Salonga would stand a chance of winning today. Their old-man looks, dated rhetoric, and inflexible principles amount to little in our media-centric culture, where popularity and notoriety drive political success, with factors like “integrity” and “capability” hardly figuring in the equation. 

Among the most potent of images being peddled by current aspirants is that of the “action” star or “action” person who promises to deliver everything from instant justice, barangay roads, and hospital beds to basketball courts, photo ops, and fiesta lechon. “Action” means looking good and making smart-alecky comments for social-media consumption at Senate hearings; “action” means talking the language of the streets, being everyone’s kumpare or kumare.

There’s nothing wrong with these per se, as we do need politicians to be in touch with the everyday realities our people face. The loftiest oratory isn’t going to banish corruption, traffic, high prices, red tape, and abusive officials—unless it’s accompanied by well-crafted and enforceable laws that are the Senate’s proper business. 

And that’s where we should ask: what have these candidates actually done to deserve their seat? And never mind the rhetoric; some of our best senators were no barnburners when it came to speechifying, but—like late Edgardo J. Angara—they delivered where it mattered: in SEJA’s case, no less than the Free High School Act, Commission on Higher Education, Technical Education and Skill Development Authority, the National Health Insurance Act (Philhealth), Senior Citizens Act, the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act, the Renewable Energy Act and the Procurement Reform Act.

The Senate wasn’t meant to be a Department of Quick Fixes. The true senator’s sphere of action is in his or her mind. We should be choosing, electing, and paying senators based on how they think we should act and move ahead as a nation. 

The Senate is not a welfare agency. It is not a medical clinic or dispensary. It is not an action center or complaints hotline. It is not a job placement bureau. It is not a police precinct. It shouldn’t even be a representative body in the sense of having one senator represent intelligence and another represent ignorance so everyone can say it’s a body of equals. 

It should represent the finest of the Filipino—in intellect, character, and sensibility. Do our chart-toppers meet that standard?

Qwertyman No. 132: A False Horizon

Posted on by
Reply

Qwertyman for Monday, February 10, 2025

I DON’T know why, but like the proverbial bad penny that keeps turning up (English teachers: note the British idiom), every few years, some Filipino school announces its adoption of an “English-only” language policy on its campus, ostensibly in the service of a sublime objective such as “global competitiveness” or “global competence.”

This time around, it’s the Pamantasan ng Cabuyao that’s enforcing the rule. PNC president Librado Dimaunahan has issued a memo declaring that “In line with our vision of developing globally competitive and world class students, the Pamantasan ng Cabuyao (University of Cabuyao) is now an English-speaking campus starting Feb. 03, 2025…. All transactions and engagements with officers, students, employees, and workers should be communicated in English, whether written or otherwise. For strict compliance.” What he wanted to create was no less than “a strong English-speaking environment.” 

A few years ago, it was Cavite State University which required its students, teachers and staff to speak exclusively in English or face punishments like getting your ID confiscated and having to sing the CvSU hymn (in English, of course). Filipino could be used only by maintenance workers—and by others, but only in the restrooms and cafeteria.

I’m not going to add to the brickbats that these ideas have already received, not unreasonably. But I will add my two cents’ worth (my, where do these “brickbats” and “two cents” come from?) to the conversation, as a lifelong user and teacher of the language.

I have a PhD in English—something I don’t often bring up because it sounds so pompous and presumptuous—earned in America where, to my smug satisfaction and my classmates’ consternation, my professor would single out my prose for, among others, its perfect punctuation. I was the only one in our graduate literature class who could explain the difference between parataxis and hypotaxis (no, nothing to do with Yellow Cabs and Uber). Was that global competitiveness? I guess so. Was I proud of my English language skills? Of course. Did it make me or the Philippines any richer? Not a dollar more. Is this what a national language policy should be about? Heck, no.

I’ve done well in English not because I was forced to, but because I love the language, and languages in general. I should have loved Spanish—discovering its beauty too late, when I had to read and translate Federico Garcia Lorca for a grad-school exam—but I didn’t, because we had been forced by our curriculum to take so many units of it (24, in my mother’s time). I started on German and French in high school and college and am picking German up again on Duolingo, in preparation for the forthcoming Frankfurt Book Fair. (I write plays and screenplays in Filipino, despite being born in Romblon.)

What I’ve realized from studying these languages and from a lifetime of writing, speaking, and using English is that in our country of over a hundred languages, English can’t be taught and learned well by exclusively using English. I’m learning German on Duolingo using English.

I don’t mind saying that when I teach creative writing or literature in English, I pause when my students can’t seem to understand what the text is saying—and then we pursue the same line of inquiry in Filipino, and everybody goes “Ah!” It makes simple teaching sense. You can’t get more out of a student—in English—if he or she can’t understand or even recognize the problem, in English. 

And just to be clear, these are questions of comprehension and interpretation that even native speakers of English would have a hard time with. (How do I know? I taught the American short story to American undergraduates in Wisconsin.) These are questions like “So what’s John Updike saying about the position of the rebel or nonconformist in society at the end of his story ‘A&P’?” That’s best answerable if you also discuss as we do what America was like in the 1960s, with Vietnam, Woodstock, the civil rights movement, and the moon landing in the background. (I always tell my students that we’re not studying American literature and history to become Americans, but to become better and wiser Filipinos.) 

Boomers like me like to recall that in many private schools of our time, students were fined five centavos for every instance they were caught using Filipino. Some may find that quaint or even charming, but if you think anyone learned and loved English because of these stupid rules, think again. Students learn good English from good teachers who don’t teach English as a grammar rulebook but as a road map or even a cheat sheet to an adventure.

English is best learned along the way of learning something else—like how the world works, in science and literature—as a key to unlocking knowledge and meaning. English proficiency all by itself is a non-goal, a false horizon that can delude people into believing that they’ve arrived. Arrived where? What for?

All the English in the world isn’t going to turn the Philippines into an economic powerhouse—which Japan, China, Russia, and Germany managed to become without a mandatory word of English in their curricula from decades back. Better English could make us become more employable as waiters, domestic helpers, and seamen—and I’m not downplaying this, because the language does give us an advantage in those markets—but these jobs, noble as they are, aren’t what universities were made for.

All the English in the world isn’t going to drive a moral spine up the backs of our leaders. Intolerable as it was, one president’s foul mouth and boorish manners may not be far worse than a General Appropriations Act legitimizing the wholesale thievery of people’s money in perfectly edited English. 

We can speak all we want with an American accent—only to realize that, in Trump’s America, where one of his appointees has declared pointblank that “It takes a competent white man to get things done right,” the color of your skin still matters more than whether you can pronounce “Adirondack” or “tortoise” correctly. Trump’s maniacal edicts and pronouncements—cutting foreign aid, expelling Palestinians so he can turn Gaza into an American beach resort, and turning the FBI and the DOJ into his personal security force and loyalty police—have all been made in his lazy, slurring English, each word delivering chaos and disaster with as much consequence as Hitler’s Nuremberg rants.

More shameful than lack of proficiency in English is lack of proficiency in one’s own language, which I see in the children of parents anxious to “globalize” their kids without mooring them first in their own culture. Those children will be maimed for life, insulated from and unable to communicate with or relate to their common countrymen. We need our own languages to understand ourselves.

Teach good values and good citizenship. Even if that student’s English turns out less than stellar, our country can’t be worse off.

Qwertyman No. 131: A Relentless Questioner

Posted on by
Reply

Qwertyman for Monday, February 3, 2025

I DON’T know if there’s a Marxist heaven, but if there is, then Dr. Francisco “Dodong” Nemenzo, who passed away recently, must be smiling up there because of the forthcoming launch of his book Notes from the Philippine Underground (UP Press, 2025).

It’s too bad that Dodong won’t be around to see the book and sign copies for his legions of friends and comrades—many of them like my wife Beng, who remember him as a dashing and persuasively articulate professor of Western Thought, despite the Cebuano-accented English he was sometimes laughed at for by the ignorant. He never became my teacher in college, and oddly enough—because I was out of UP Diliman for most of the time he was teaching there—I never really got to know him closely as an activist and ideologue.

I did know him as a boss—he took me in as his Vice President for Public Affairs when he was UP President—and in that capacity I learned to respect and admire him as a man who held firm to his principles while finding practical and effective solutions to UP’s problems. This was especially true of our campaign to revise the outdated UP Charter, which eventually succeeded under President Emerlinda Roman, but which he tenaciously pursued despite the insults of spiteful politicians. 

Throughout his adult life and to the last, Nemenzo remained a professed and unapologetic Marxist—a word that would seem Jurassic in these post-Soviet and Trumpian times, but which he saw and lived in a different light. 

As the preface to his book by Prof. Patricio “Jojo Abinales” explains, “Dodong’s engagement with Marxist theory wasn’t an academic exercise. For him, Marxism was a living, breathing framework—a summons to connect theory to the existing conditions of everyday life. He wasn’t content to theorize from a distance; with a scientific mind, he dug into the realities of Philippine society, always interrogating its dominant ideas, structures, and contradictions. His writings speak to this dual commitment: the rigor of his analysis is matched by an acute sensitivity to the concrete lives of real people whose struggles he sought to illuminate. He distrusted all dogma, and sought to validate all received knowledge.

“Francisco ‘Dodong’ Nemenzo’s life and work resist easy categorization. He was a Marxist thinker, a revolutionary activist, an inspiring academic leader, and a mentor to generations of scholars and radicals. But more than any of these roles, he was a relentless questioner of the world as he found it—and a passionate believer in its potential to be different, if not better.”

Indeed the book shows how sharp, even scathing, Dodong could be in his opinions of how his idea of Marxism remains relevant and useful despite how it has been misused by many of its adherents and misunderstood by its opponents. 

He writes: “We must struggle against their misconception of Marxist theory and practice (e.g., equating Marxism with Stalinism and totalitarianism) and point out that humanism is inherent in the Marxist worldview. Going through the basic documents of Filipino social democratic groups, it is obvious that, even as they try to distance themselves from Marxism, their analysis of present conditions and their historical roots is almost entirely based on a Marxist framework.” 

He acknowledges the flaws and failures of Marxist parties caught up in internal conflicts (Dodong himself was once ordered to be executed by the party he belonged to, ostensibly for treason): “Can people be blamed for suspecting that communists are motivated by cynical calculations of what would bring them tactical advantages? Their loud and monotonous protestations ring hollow in the absence of inner-party democracy. The authoritarian and repressive character of the regimes their comrades established wherever they gained the upper hand reinforced this impression. This stigma they must shake off; otherwise they would remain at the periphery in the continuing struggle for democracy.”

He is not without wry humor. Reflecting on the ultimate folly of a revolution being led by a highly secretive, centralized, and “conspiratorial” party, he notes: “This is difficult to implement in the Philippine cultural milieu. A code of silence—what the Russians call konspiratsiya and the Mafiosi call omerta—is impossible among people who take rumor-mongering as a favorite sport. Our irrepressible transparency is a weakness from one point of view but a virtue from another. Our legendary incapacity to keep secrets is probably the best guarantee that no conspiratorial group can stay in power long enough to consolidate a dictatorship.”

Even for those disinclined or even hostile toward the Left, Notes from the Philippine Underground offers many valuable insights from one of that movement’s “OGs,” in today’s youth-speak. Nemenzo may be highly critical but he remains ultimately hopeful that positive and deep social change will happen, if the Left learns from its mistakes and finds new ways to engage society. Listen:

“There have been many pseudo-united fronts put up by the vanguard party. They consist of party-led mass organizations that simply echo the party line. None ever grew into a genuine united front, although they did attract a few prominent individuals who had no organizational base whatsoever. Other organized groups are often suspicious of the party and wary of being reduced into instruments for policies they do not accept.

“But I know of only three attempts at seriously establishing a real united front in this country: in the immediate postwar period, in the late 1960s, and very recently. They all collapsed because of sectarian methods of work. Sectarianism is the blight of all united front efforts everywhere….

“The Philippine movement has never been able to solve this dilemma. At the very moment when united front structures are set up, rivalries emerged. And intoxicated by short-term successes in expanding their mass organizations, the sectarians eventually prevailed.”

Pluralism, he suggests, is key: “Pluralism is a bourgeois liberal doctrine that ought to be preserved and enriched in the socialist revolution. It is not incompatible with socialism. The tension that arises through political competition would serve as a constant reminder that the party must earn the allegiance of the masses. Of course, no state would tolerate an opposition party that resorts to violent methods and solicits support from foreign powers. But this should never be an excuse for suppressing any opposition.”

Surely there will be blowback from those holding different views; expect the usual howl from UP bashers and red-taggers. But when that happens, even from the grave—or Marxist heaven—Dodong Nemenzo will have sparked the kind of discussion we direly need to find our way forward as a nation.

Qwertyman No. 130: A Family Business

Posted on by
Reply

Qwertyman for Monday, January 27, 2025

“The Senate is not a family business,” posted my friend R. on Facebook, and I found myself nodding at what sounded like the patently obvious truth, which somehow seems to still elude our family-oriented countrymen.

Among the loudest alarms raised by the forthcoming midterm election is the likelihood that, once again, Filipino voters will be choosing people with the same surnames to add to what has become, over the decades, a cozy nest of clans. 

It isn’t just the Senate, of course, which is infected with dynastisis. From Congress down to the Sangguniang Kabataan where fledgling politicos learn to tweet, our entire political system has been one big and long-running Family Feud. Husbands, wives, and their kids serve as senator, congressman, governor, mayor, and councilor with utter shamelessness, claiming a form of manifest destiny contestable only by another family.

It’s gotten so bad that—surprise, surprise—Sen. Robinhood Padilla, last accused of doing little on the job but preening his mustache, filed SB 2730 last July against political dynasties (already in our Constitution, but lacking an enabling law). Citing a Harvard study (which always seems to bear more weight than common sense), Padilla said that political dynasties “persist and reproduce their power over time, undermining the effectiveness of institutional reforms in the process.” 

More informatively, Padilla noted that “A dataset of Philippine local elections from 1988 to 2019 showed the number of governors with at least one relative in office (dynasty) increased by almost 39 percentage points, from 41% in 1988 to 80% in 2019. The dynasty proportion of vice governors rose from 18% in 1988 to 68% in 2019. The percentage of mayors in the dynasty increased gradually from 26% in 1988 to 53% in 2019…. Political dynasties, in effect, have exhausted resources to attain economic and political dominance while at the same time compromising political competition and undermining accountability…. It is time to break the barriers preventing the best and the brightest from serving the Filipino people.”

Tell that to the Philippine Senate which, because it has only 24 members, magnifies the prevalence and persistence of dynastisis even more. 

One of the ways the US Senate differs from ours is the way it’s composed, with two senators from each of the 50 US states, which, in their federal system, gives equal weight to giant Texas and tiny Vermont. That should make it highly unlikely for two related people to be in the Senate at the same time, right? Well, sort of. As it turns out, in US history, two pairs of brothers actually served in the Senate together. One pair I’m pretty sure you never heard of—Theodore and Dwight Foster, who simultaneously represented Rhode Island and Massachusetts at the start of the 1800s. The next pairing didn’t happen until more than 150 years later—with Edward and Robert Kennedy representing Massachusetts and New York in the 1960s. 

Our Senate puts America’s to shame in that department. 

It helps, of course, to be related to a President, or to prepare oneself to be one. By my count, there have been five Aquinos in the Senate—Ninoy, Butz, Tessie, Noynoy, and Bam; four Marcoses—Ferdinand, Imelda, Bongbong, and Imee; four Estradas—Joseph, Loi, JV, and Jinggoy; three Roxases—Manuel, Gerry, and Mar; three Osmeñas—Serging, John, and Serge; three Laurels—Jose, Sotero, and Doy; and two Magsaysays—Gene and Jun. “Cong Dadong” Macapagal never became a senator, but his daughter Gloria did. Fidel Ramos’ contribution to the Senate was his sister Letty.

To these presidential surnames we have to add those of other political families such as the Dioknos, Tañadas, Kalaws, Angaras, Guingonas, Antoninos, Rectos, Pimentels, Revillas, Villars, Cayetanos, and possibly Tulfos. The Cebu Osmeñas—John and Sergio, Jr.—once served together in the Seventh Congress in the early 1970s; the Cayetanos—Pia and Alan—followed suit in the Fourteenth, in the late 2000s, and the Villars—Cynthia and Mark—in the current Nineteenth. 

That’s not to say that some members of these political clans were not deserving or distinguished. Many certainly were—in the right hands, a family tradition of public service sets high standards and expectations. Never mind the ancient Fosters, but I don’t think America minded having Ted and Bobby Kennedy in the Senate, with Ted serving continuously for an astounding 47 years until he died.

They have no term limits in America. We imposed ours in the 1987 Constitution—a well-meaning gesture meant to democratize our legislature, but which backfired and produced exactly what it wanted to avoid. Our political families quickly learned to adjust and do a merry-go-round, ensuring further that one member or other would occupy all spots in the wheel. What developed over the years was less a revitalization of the institution with bright new talents than a pooling and coagulation of old blood. 

So rather than an anti-dynasty law which seems to have little chance of passing a House full of dynasties anyway, perhaps we should revisit term limits, so we can retain the services of truly outstanding senators (like Franklin Drilon, for example) for life, rather than punish ourselves by replacing them with inferior siblings and cousins. 

There are and have been high-performing senators whom we don’t and shouldn’t mind serving over and over again, politicians with genuine and critical advocacies they have devoted their lives to. Our political history has been fortunate to have seen the likes of such men and women as Senators Claro M. Recto, Jose Diokno, Lorenzo Tañada, Raul Manglapus, Emmanuel Pelaez, Helena Benitez, Eva Estrada Kalaw, Juan Flavier, Rene Saguisag, Miriam Defensor Santiago, and Edgardo Angara, just to speak of the departed.

Sadly our political realities preclude the truly poor from winning a Senate seat, and only extraordinary circumstances like EDSA can lift up capable and virtuous candidates of modest means such as Dr. Juan Flavier and Atty. Rene Saguisag to that exalted position. But their interests can be articulated and defended by men and women with the capacity and quality of mind and spirit to see beyond themselves. These are senators whom we expect to make laws that build a nation, rather than empower and enrich themselves and their progeny even further.