As the air crackles with anger, with the righteous fury of a people tired of broken promises and whispered deals in dimly lit rooms. It’s a feeling you can taste in the streets, a feeling that fuels the calls for President Marcos Jr. and Vice President Duterte to step down. And in the heart of it all, stands Cardinal Pablo Virgilio David during the Trillion Peso March, a shepherd of souls, offering not a rallying cry for immediate revolution, but a hand outstretched, urging caution and a path less travelled.

It’s easy to dismiss the Cardinal’s stance as being out of touch, as clinging to a system that many feel has already failed them. But look closer, and you see not complacency, but a deep, abiding love for the Philippines, a love that compels the Cardinal to ask the hard questions, the ones that whisper of unintended consequences and the fragility of democracy.

Imagine the power vacuum, the sudden jolt to a nation already teetering. Can we truly be certain that what follows will be better? Can we guarantee that the forces that rise to fill the void will be driven by a genuine desire for justice, or by the same hunger for power that plagues the present? These are the questions that keep Cardinal David up at night, the questions that shape the Cardinal’s calculated, yet unwavering, stance.

The Cardinal sees the fiery passion of those demanding immediate change, the Cardinal hears their cries for justice, and the Cardinal understands the depth of their pain. But the Cardinal also sees the ghosts of history, the specter of good intentions paved with unforeseen consequences, leading to a road even darker than the one they seek to escape.

The Cardinal speaks not as a politician, hungry for power, but as a pastor, concerned for his flock. The Cardinal is apprehensive and cautious at the thought of a military junta, even one draped in the robes of religious leaders. The Cardinal’s faith teaches the Cardinal that true power lies not in the sword, but in the quiet strength of the human spirit, in the unwavering pursuit of justice through peaceful means.

The Cardinal’s is a plea for patience, not apathy, hope not rage. A call for dialogue, not division. The Cardinal knows the road ahead will be long and arduous, filled with setbacks and compromises. But the Cardinal believes, with every fiber of the Cardinal’s being, that lasting change can only be built on a foundation of democratic principles, on a commitment to peaceful solutions, and on a unwavering faith in the power of the Filipino people to build a better future, together.

So, before we rush to tear down the house, brick by painful brick, perhaps we should pause, listen to the voice of the shepherd, and ask ourselves: are we truly ready for what comes next? And are we willing to commit to the long, hard work of nation building? something stronger, something more accountable, transparent and just? A good and trustworthy government that will truly endure? Because the future of the Philippines depends not just on our anger, but on our wisdom, our patience, and our unwavering commitment to building a better tomorrow, together.

1SAMBAYAN … YELLOW? RED? ELITE? Many comments since the launch of 1SAMBAYAN have been hurled towards the movement. It has been given and tagged with many false assumptions which are mostly unfounded and meant to malign the very core objective of unifying all democratic forces. Four months after the launch, recurring accusations and false “labels” have been given by the uninformed and skeptics refusing to believe that unity is achievable.

Let me start by saying that 1SAMBAYAN has and will continue to strive for a United Philippines — a unity of democratic forces — with unity of purpose for good governance and a better Philippines for all. Whose immediate plan of a regime change is to have a unified Presidential, Vice President and Senatorial line-up to be presented to the Philippine electorate come May 2022 elections.

1SAMBAYAN’s ultimate agenda goes beyond the Synchronized National and Local Polls of 2022. It envisions an inclusive, pro-active and unified approach towards nation building beyond 2022. It will be at the forefront of the fight for Philippine sovereignty, good governance, rule of law, socio-economic development and jobs for all.

To dispel all these false assumptions and negative labels of being “Dilawan”, “elitist”, “red”, etc., allow me to give a little bit of history of how 1SAMBAYAN evolved and flourished from an mere “idea” or “thought process” to now 45 chapters in the Philippines, 20 overseas chapters and 50 allied coalitions, parties and civil organizations.

The idea started from a simple conversation sometime in July 2020 among a small group of businessmen and civic leaders. The idea was placed into motion to which the group designated me due to my neutral stand (having no political affiliation — not yellow, not red, not admin) which hopefully can bridge most if not all possible personalities and or candidates having been either personally known as friends, clients and/or associated with as an election lawyer.

1SAMBAYAN’s early beginnings started with our talks with Bro. Armin Luistro and Fr. Albert Alejo. In my mind, if I could have rivals Ateneo and La Salle in one table that could symbolically start this envisioned unity for the country. This was then followed by our talks with Justice Tony Carpio, who is a very capable leader with similar thought and aspiration for a unified democratic force. Then came Justice Conchita Carpio Morales and Amb. Albert Del Rosario, which added the gravitas that would inspire and encourage other similar pro-Filipino individuals to join the movement. Of course, to manage and make transparent all our financial transactions, Com. Heidi Mendoza gladly joined as well.

Succeeding discussions were then with former Cong. Neri Colminares and Cong. Tonchi Tonio from the legal left while rear Admiral Jude Ong (an expert on the West Philippine sea) and Don Santiago of Magdalo to bring in the right wing and Military. As for labor sector, we have Sonny Matula and Rene Magtubo from the Nagkakaisa Labor Coalition.

From this initial group our convenors, now 24 present member-convenors have broadened our coalition with the inclusion of two youth represent Rene Co (current UP student regent ) and Rae Reposar (student leader from De La Salle). Other Sectoral Convenors includes: Dra. Leni Jara (for public health); Akbayan’s Etta Rosales (for Human Rights); Sec. Ging Deles (for women empowerment and peace process); Cherry Barnuevo (for urban poor); Roslyn Legal (for farmers and fisherfolks); Joanna Concepcion (for OFW/Migrant Workers); Amb. Mac Lanto (for Muslim Affairs); Dindo Manhit (for political concerns) and Ricky Xavier (for inter-religious dialogue). Government luminaries which includes former Gov. Lito Cosculluela and former BSP Dep. Gov. Diwa Gunigundo rounds up the composition.

Yes we have grown, and we are still expanding and strengthening our ranks. We will continue our conversations and dialogues with all Pro-Philippine democratic loving Filipinos regardless of their political ideology. So how can we be called “dilaw” if a majority of us did not serve the previous Aquino Administration? We supported various candidates in 2016 and none of us played a major part in Otso Diretso in 2019. How can we be called “red” when the group is composed of both ends of the ideological divide? 1SAMBAYAN’s table of unity is based on what is best for the Philippines; and whose organizational integrity can never be tainted by the politics of personality, pay-off and patronage.

Moreover, while we are in open talks with perceived admin supporters or previous Duterte allies, these do not mean that we are pro-admin. It only means that inclusivity equally demands looking at common objectives and principles to move the country together.

To borrow the words of Sen. Frank Drilon, 1SAMBAYAN is trying to provide a “big tent” where all parties can be equally sheltered in a common clout for the betterment of the country. A Unity table where the interest of the country is foremost and personal political agenda on the back burner. We need to see the big picture, we cannot be out in one label or be a purist. We have to embrace and broaden our reach for a unified victory.

As the filing of candidacy nears and the election seasons begins, a lot of individuals and parties will join and align themselves in different forms and degrees of engagement but above all what is paramount is that we are all unified under one candidate for a better Philippines.

When the heart stops beating, the body fades away but a person’s legacy lives on.

Dr. Homobono “HB” B. Calleja was born on February 27, 1929 in a small town in Albay to Ambrosio and Severina Calleja. Ambrosio a member of the 1935 Constitutional Commission died during the war and left Severina with their 13 children. HB graduated valedictorian of his class and through his early academic achievements continued his studies in Manila as a working student. While working HB maintained his scholarship and graduated Cum Laude in BS Zoology and in Doctor of Medicine, both at the UST.

After UST, he rode a slow boat to the US and pursued the field of Cardiology at the Cleveland Clinic. A Filipino at heart, he was not lured to a lucrative practice in the US. He declined a medical position and even US citizenship. Instead, he opted to return and serve his motherland, the Philippines.

Upon his return to the Philippines, he immediately established his practice in cardiology. He met my mother Ella Alma Maceda while accompanying my Lolo Antonio Maceda for a heart check-up. My Lolo was unaware that my dad and mom had a slip of the heart upon seeing each other. They married and it bore 5 children and later on 10 grandchildren.

Dr. HB was not just a FATHER to me. He was MY MENTOR, MY INSPIRATION and MY BEST FRIEND.

As a FATHER, he showed that more than his love for his profession and his patients; his love for his family was supreme. Sundays were dedicated to our Sunday family dinners and, of course, his favorite game, golf. Rain or shine, golf must go on, as he would always say. A tradition I too have learned to live by together with my son Hugo, who picked up the game at an early age of 7.

HB never aspired to be great, but in the eyes of his 5 children and his 10 grandchildren, he will always be a great man — their “Lolo Doc” ever-present and caring. Never mind the accolades bestowed upon him; he will always be PAPA and LOLO DOC; and “Sweetie” to my mom. Surely at 92, papa lived a full life. We would miss his distinct laugh and his loud cheer as he makes the longest putts in and around the green.

As a MENTOR, I grew up seeing how important the medical field is for him and how much he cherished it. I enrolled in UST for my degree in physical therapy I distinctly recall at that time, the admission was already closed and full but doors opened just by mentioning his name. However, following his footsteps was a big shoe to fill. My professors were either colleagues or students of HB, who knew his academic achievements. They called me at every opportunity and expected a perfect answer.

He truly lived by his name Homobono (“the good man”) and HB “heartbeat” best exemplifies him as good, just and disciplined with a heart. Yes, he was strict and might even have forced one or two students out of the window. But then, this kind of discipline was what made his students excel and become the best they can be.

As an INSPIRATION, he showed how dedication and hard work can bring you at the top of your profession. He was one of the brains in the establishment of the Philippine Heart Center and was its first Director of adult cardiology. He was also a pioneer at the Makati Medical Center and, later on, was the founder of the heart institute in St. Luke’s Medical Center. He also trail blazed the field of cardiology and lead the golden age of Philippine cardiology. Often referred to as the father of echocardiography in the Philippines

Indeed, my father was many things to many persons, whose lives he touched and served. It was so inspirational to see how he dedicated his life to God, family and his profession. He was called numerous times to serve in public office but declined, saying his heart is in his profession. He asked who will take care of his patients once he goes to another field?

He believed that serving his profession with passion and dedication is the best way he can serve his fellow man. He also served in a private capacity as Governor of Kiwanis International and helped indigent heart patients. He became four times President of the Philippine Medical Association where he fought hard for the respect and dignity of the doctors and of the medical profession. Knowing that the medical profession needs more skilled professionals allied to the profession he placed his name and stamp of excellence in the HB Calleja Center Academy for Medical Skills Advancement.

HB was never selfish; nor did he make money and fame as motivations to serve. He donated his income as Director of the Philippine Heart Center. He also established a medical foundation at the St. Luke’s Medical School using his income as Director of the Heart Institute in St. Luke’s and Assistant Dean of the school. He also helped the indigent patients at the Mary Mediatrix Medical Center, where he served as Chairman of the Board since its inception.

And as a BEST FRIEND, he would always catch me whenever I fail or fall. At home, we feared our dinner time with him as it will be a rundown of things that we’ve done and the classes or grades that we had, though fearful we actually cherished those times. Our family summer vacations are always something we look forward to. Every year before my mother would bring us to the US on vacation, I remember that my father would never fail to take us around for a week two to different provinces so we see and appreciate the beauty of the Philippines. He was most especially excited whenever we had a road trip to his home province in Bicol. We would stop at every town where he had a relative or friend. Thus, the 8-10 hour journey will be more than a day sleeping overnight in one of the towns along the way.

Yes, My Father, My Mentor, My Inspiration and My Best Friend is no longer with me and my family, but death does not end a relationship, it transforms it. On July 25, 2021, my dad’s heart stopped beating but our hearts continue to the beat and in all the hearts he had touched. He will remain always in our hearts just a heartbeat away. There are no goodbyes and I am comforted to know that as Papa closed this chapter, he is welcomed in his next journey by all the angels in heaven together with Mama and my beloved Minuet.

Love you Papa! Your heartbeat remains in us forever.

While of course the aforementioned aspects of voter education is essential, I must make the case that we expand the coverage: aiming instead for voter empowerment. If our goal to achieve good governance in all democratic offices is to be reached, we must all do our part in promoting informed and vigilant voting. While encouraging citizen participation (especially engaging the youth to be a part of the decision-making process) is essential, the core of voter empowerment should be responsive to the needs of the electorate. Voter education that is responsive to the issues that matter to the masses must include basic research skills, whether that be through a digital platform or sifting through campaign materials at their barangay halls, and how to critically review a candidate’s platform. Education becomes empowerment when certain skills are taught that can go beyond a single election cycle, instead leading to a new generation of informed voters.

The ability to critically review a candidate’s platform need not be a skill limited to the academe, nor those with an intense familiarity with the government or its laws, it can be easily taught. By teaching the electorate to prioritize the issues that matter the most to them, and teach them how to access materials that can help compare the various candidates’ stance on them, they can select who they believe best fits the bill. Whether the issues be education, national security, gender rights, or religion, this can be approached in an impartial and non-partisan manner. Though I personally do not agree with single-issue voters, this is still a legitimate manner of voting and even single-issue voters should have the ability to access all the facts.

Campaigns to promote informed voting should also include teaching the electorate how to access materials and news items that show their candidate’s previous voting record as a legislator, their campaign expenditures, and past fulfillment (or lack thereof) of campaign promises. Informed voters are essential to prevent the continuation of the cycle of violation of campaign fund regulations and even vote-buying. Such practices not only undermine our entire electoral process, but also contribute to continued corruption in our government. Voters who are both vigilant and informed can be the catalyst that compels transparency from candidates in the next election cycle.

Empowered voters also know that the exercise of their right of suffrage directly fuels our democracy towards maturity. For example, they can see how transparency can directly affect their lives: Pasig Mayor Vico Sotto made headlines last year from declaring he saved P150 million just from reforming his city’s procurement process to have transparency at its center. Considering his city’s efforts during the pandemic to make gadgets accessible and promote safe traveling options for frontliners, it seems that money is, indeed, going back to the people. The power to vote in leaders should come with the responsibility to be critical. Hopefully, voter empowerment will encourage us to look beyond the band-aid solutions and look at leaders who truly are in service of the people. One way to do so is to look at our current political, social, and economic issues and pick leaders whose campaign platforms best reflect the potential to achieve the best future for the next generation. It is true that the ongoing pandemic has gone on a long way in shaping our image of politicians, but what about the possibility of another pandemic? Have your local leaders shown empathy, responsiveness, accountability, and transparency? Or did they give you a bag of rice and call it a day?

This is why voter education cannot rely solely on publication materials on how to register with COMELEC, nor place our hope on the youth, though both are important. Fundamental to voter education is encouraging the average Filipino to vote according to his conscience, whatever it may tell him. Instead of exclusively disseminating information on how to vote, let us empower the electorate by reinforcing the pillars of good governance as a cornerstone of effective leadership.

Last January 6, the entire world saw the United States Capitol Building suffer a violent attack by supporters of the former U.S. President. What was once a symbol of democracy to the Western world became the victim of the product of months of election conspiracy theories. As a mob of fanatics of the former President breached the grounds, one couldn’t help but think that the violence was preventable.

Do we not face the very same threat? Instead of months of conspiracies and refusing to concede, the Philippines has their own billionaire spending years on his own campaign to refuse defeat. Now that we have seen the worst possible effects of crying fraud, will we finally say enough is enough?

Bongbong Marcos has lived in an alternative reality for almost five years now and, for the sake of our own Republic, this issue must be laid to rest. With only a few months from the start of the filing of candidacies, and a little over a year until the next election, the Supreme Court must continue to do everything in their power to stop this blatant attempt at undermining our democratic process. They have done an admirable job of remaining independent in the face of vicious political attacks to move for inhibition, but it is now time to remove all semblance of doubt from the minds of the BBM supporters.

For sometime now, the Marcos campaign to undermine the 2016 election has been centered on invalidating the votes of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), which they believe would give them the lead in the long-declared Vice Presidential race. As COMELEC has already verified and repeatedly upheld the elections in ARMM, the results remain to be valid. But attempts to invalidate ARMM votes, and undermine the entire region’s electoral process, takes on the consequence of subjecting all positions to scrutiny (from President to local councilors), opening up the floodgates for doubt in our elections – and unrest. The potential for this process to invalidate the local positions is enough for us all to take heed of the warning that the US Capitol insurrection had on all democratic states. We have had a long history of tense, and even violent, local elections. Declaring the ARMM vote has invalid should not be seen as an option, lest it create even more opportunity for violent power struggles.

However, there is the preverbal monkey wrench: if the Court believes there must be an answer to pacify the BBM camp, they may instead set aside the ARMM votes and order a recount. Though we can maintain certainty that Marcos would lose again, this option can only validate any feelings of doubt as to the legality of the 2016 election. If the Court decides to give into the idea of a recount, it would unfortunately grant legitimacy to their claims of fraud. We hope, instead, that they remain standing firm and independent, dismissing the baseless claims outright – to prevent any doubt of fraud from lingering.

The Court must resolve this issue as soon as possible. Otherwise, by continuing to allow room for doubt in the minds of the BBM camp would, in effect, be to the benefit of the current administration. Malacañang has said nothing on BBM continuously undermining the Office of the Vice President, and has yet to condemn the camp for its fishing expedition, allowing him to save face in the years following a crushing defeat. Though it is obvious to everyone living outside of the Marcos’ alternative reality that the 2016 elections reflected the intent of the electorate -and that Congress rightly proclaimed Leni as the winner in the Vice Presidential race- it is best to settle the issues at hand.

If we continue to shove their claims to the side, it opens up a new landscape for the 2022 elections, where a BBM Presidential run is viable. Or even a Sara-BBM ticket, where the tandem would be carried by the inaction of the fraud claims; creating an atmosphere of anger and distrust among their supporters. I hope we will not let this come to fruition, and instead see the entire country recognize the legitimacy and strength of the current Office of the Vice President. Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s attempts to settle the issue over the past few years is entirely admirable, and they must stand firm and remain independent amongst the overwhelming pressure from all sides. It is only with this, coupled with a united opposition against one (or more) candidates hand-picked by the administration, that the truth will be illuminated for the Filipino people; ahead of an election that already promises to be full of attempts to mislead the public.

Today, the Supreme Court begins to hear the oral arguments on the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020. After seven months since the bill was first signed into law, and after thirty-seven petitions found their way into the hands of the highest court in the land, I am empowered by my fellow Filipinos. As the first to file before the Court, assailing the law’s constitutionality on multiple grounds, I’ve found that many colleagues, clients, students, and the general public have come to me with their warranted fears.

“Sir, I am afraid to post on my social media that I was a student-activist in UP, and my views that UP was our last safe place to protest.” said one of my students, after the recent news of the termination of the UP-DND accord. “Too many of my friends have been publicly red-tagged in the past, and I’m worried for their security.” This fear has been exacerbated by the Anti-Terrorism Act and its accompanying Implementing Rules and Regulations; even before this law was enacted, dissenters were publicly declared communists. Now, the practice has been legitimized and caused much of the youth, including my student, to fear expressing their views.

This chilling effect on free speech should be enough for the administration to reevaluate the law, but instead those who are questioning the Anti-Terrorism Act are called pro-terrorist; validating my student’s fears. Reports of threatening phone calls -and other terror tactics including surveillance by masked men- on lawyers arguing beside me today only prove that this is has always been about allowing legitimate dissent to prosper.

After months of waiting, and several postponements, the thirty-seven sets of petitioners have chosen seven presenters and six alternates, of which I am included. The presenters will discuss the issues of the vague and overly broad definition of terrorism, the violation of separation of powers, unconstitutional surveillance and travel restrictions, warrantless arrests, among others. After today’s oral arguments, the Supreme Court will decide on our petition’s plea for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to halt the implementation of the law. Because we expect that the proceedings, in their entirety, will be drawn out, it is this immediate relief that I ask all free Filipinos to help pray for.

As the legal arguments are finally breathed to life from some of the top legal minds in the country, the thirty-seven hold one common belief: that civil liberties should never be gambled. This is not, and will never be, an attack against our government; rather, it is a collective effort to uphold our constitutional rights. Any Filipino who stands firm with a conviction should never be viewed as a terrorist, rather they should be seen as someone who believes in a better future for their country. With the mere possibility of abuse due to the wording and various provisions of the law, this should be enough for all Filipinos to take notice – because there should never be room for mistake or misinterpretation.

The fight against terrorism is not one that is won by scaring citizens into submission. Neither should any law that seeks to address it have the potential to be used as an instrument of State abuse. Since filing the petition, I have been called a terrorist, and a terrorist sympathizer. I have been red-tagged alongside the thirty-six other sets of petitioners. However I hold these unfair and baseless claims as a badge of honor and distinction, because being red-tagged has come to mean that standing up and claiming the constitutional rights of all Filipinos. As we argue in front of the Supreme Court today, we reiterate the essential liberties that form a democratic society – and the right of every Filipino to enjoy those freedoms. We argue for our supporters, our accusers, and, most importantly, for the rights of our children and the next generations of peace-loving Filipinos.

Being anti-Anti-Terrorism Act has never been about being pro-communism, or a sympathizer for those who seek to destroy a peaceful and democratic nation. It has always been about safeguarding constitutional rights and ensuring that, regardless of race, religion, ideology, or socioeconomic status, that all Filipinos can freely voice their beliefs – without fear. As we stand before the Supreme Court today at 2pm, I, along with the twelve other representatives, are reminded that the fight against terrorism should not -and should never- be a threat to the fundamental freedoms of all peaceful Filipinos.

As a global pandemic continues to grapple our nation, with no sign of slowing down, the talk of the town is not securing safe vaccines. Nor is it rolling out a swift and efficient inoculation program. It is not even addressing the growing disparity in healthcare, education, and income that has become even more exacerbated over a year of loss of life, and livelihood. No, the recent news cycle has been covering another attempt to push for charter change (“Cha-Cha”). It seems that, even in the face of a deadly virus, politicking shows no fear or restraint.

Over the past week, renewed talks of charter change have been brought to the attention of the public not just for its ill-timed (read: insensitive) initiative in the middle of a pandemic, but also for the proposals to allow foreign ownership to “open up” the economy. Not to mention that we are expected to trust legislators who don’t even understand how to convene a Constitutional Assembly, as they have attempted to ignore the bicameral nature of Congress, with amending the constitution.

The latest rounds of Cha-Cha attempts leave the constitutional safeguards that prevent foreign ownership of lands, public utilities, and mass media firms up for debate. Under the guise of “opening up the economy” are the proposed measures being pushed, but is this really for the benefit of the Filipinos? The rebuttal is a two-fold argument: first, a restrictive economy does not equate to a failing economy; and second, the constitutionally-mandated preferential treatment of Filipinos is not only in our best economic interest, it is tantamount to protecting our national sovereignty.

The narrative that foreign ownership will “cure” our failing post-COVID economy is one that conveniently ignores the economic growth that our neighbors in Southeast Asia have enjoyed, despite their own trials with the pandemic. Up until this past year, the Philippines’ economy was growing, and the Foreign Investments Act was safeguarding our constitutional mandate to uphold Filipinization of public lands and utilities, while allowing a steady incline in investments. Once the pandemic hit, and the sorry response of the administration halted any progress made, we’ve now turned to blaming the decline on “prohibitive” constitutional restrictions. In reality, the administration has only been made to face their own failures. This is further proved by the success of Vietnam, and other neighboring developing countries, in surpassing the Philippines in GDP per capita; largely due to the former’s pandemic response and success in containing the virus.

This also largely ignores the fact that foreign investments is not solely reliant on the ability to secure ownership of lands. In fact, since our all-time high in 2014 for Foreign Direct Investments, many economists have opined that it is our egregious human rights record, corruption in high government positions that create numerous hurdles for business, inconsistent judiciary system, and unstable trade climate (that has been further rocked by our pandemic response) that has deterred foreign investors.

As we contemplate allowing foreign ownership of lands and public utilities in the renewed Cha-Cha proposals, it would do our representatives well to remember that protecting our national sovereignty was once a promise of the Duterte campaign. Though it certainly a broken promise, it is incredibly hypocritical to openly advocate for foreign domination of our economic interests. Using Cha-Cha to open foreign ownership seems to be another mechanism to legitimize China’s encroachment in our businesses, our infrastructure, and, indeed, our territorial integrity. From the past year’s growth of Chinese-owned telecommunication companies, media groups, and preferential job treatment for Chinese citizens, the opportunity to own land will only put more Filipinos under the poverty line.

This is not solely a matter of Filipino pride, but a matter of national sovereignty. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized the spirit of the constitutional mandate of the Filipinization of public utilities to be an “express recognition of the sensitive and vital position of public utilities both in the national economy and for national security.”

The right to own land, public utilities, and mass media companies have previously been exclusively reserved for Filipinos and now the proposal to -effectively- hand over control of our national economy, directly contravenes the lessons learned from the Parity Amendment that granted American citizens the right to utilize and exploit natural resources and operate public utilities. The Filipino-First policy enshrined in our constitution was a vehement protest against our colonial past, where Filipinos were made to be second-class citizens in their own country. To allow, and advocate, for its removal sets our nation, rich in natural resources, on a dangerous path of sanctioning exploitation.

The clamor to “update” our constitution from 1987 to 2021 through Cha-Cha seems to be one that is willing to disregard the rights that we reclaimed from our colonial past. Indeed, our constitution was crafted with the ideals of the primacy of Filipino life, liberty, and livelihood. This recent push for Cha-Cha, and the continued rhetoric that only economic provisions are up for debate, only leave room for crafting a constitution that favors the majority. We must be wary; as, once the constituent assembly is open, there is nothing stopping the amendment or revision of any of our constitutional provisions regarding term limits, the party-list system, or even freedoms under the bill of rights.

As we begin to establish the facts, we must remember to not be quick to accuse. Though reports are now coming to light determining “healed lacerations”, social media is, again, all too conclusive of their own determination of the facts. It must be noted that the absence of semen and healed lacerations is not conclusive of the non-occurrence of rape. The Court has previously held in People v. Rodolfo Bato that “the presence or absence of spermatozoa is immaterial in a prosecution for rape. The important consideration in rape cases is not the emission of semen but the unlawful penetration of the female genitalia by the male organ.” Neither are the presence of bruises definitive of rape. The public’s involvement in this case has led to a multitude of speculations, including the sexual orientation of some of the persons of interest; it must be emphasized that rape is not about sexual orientation, rather an abuse of power. While we refrain from making a judgment of guilt, we must also refrain from making an absolute judgment of innocence. It is unfair to both parties to draw conclusions this early on, as justice is obtained by the truth – not by persecuting the innocent.

As the facts begin to be brought to light, we must remain vigilent; even cctv footage cannot tell a whole story. Whatever videos released are only a snapshot of the moment. and not the whole picture of the events that day. Without the facts and explanations from people present, it can be inconclusive. For all the conclusions being made in the media, it is also noteworthy that, since there is no actual evidence of what occurred in the hotel rooms, the factual and evidence gathering is far from over. The independent investigations must continue, outride of the influence of the trial by publicity, in order for the prosecution to fully lay out all facts and determine what the case -and crime- is.

What’s incredibly distressing is seeing how determined the PNP was to declare the case as “solved”, without any autopsy or verified reports. How can the persons of interests already be in jail based on “provisional” charges when the crime or cause of death has not been determined and thus, there is no obligation for the persons of interest to surrender? Has there already been a determination that the crime is murder, having some inclination that there was intent done by the perpetrator/s? Or are the facts still coming to light. It is worth mentioning that murder without intent boils down to homicide and, when charging the suspects, we should ensure it is founded on truth and scientific evidence rather than the PNP’s gossip-mongering.

The witch-hunt -by the very man who consistently breaks quarantine regulations with his mañanitas and family parties- only shows how weak the PNP’s grasp of our laws and procedures is. No one is above the rule of law in the pursuit of justice, and neither should the constitutional rights of the persons of interest be disregarded. Without a warrant, and without an established crime, there is no need to give reward money for persons of interests, as it only adds confusion to an already frustrated public.

Though it is true that the suspects will, in court, have the initial advantage of the presumption of innocence, it is not the public or media’s duty to try the facts. Having handled many sensational cases myself, on both ends of the spectrum, I’ve seen that the perception of the media is only an additional obstacle to justice. The truth always unravels, and justice does prevail, but unverified reports never benefits either party. Though there is a chance that the suspects named in this case are guilty, until it is proven in court we must give them the due process that every Filipino is granted through our Constitution.

As we advocate against those that produce, and embolden, fake news, we too must do our part by refusing to call for punishment based on unverified and sensationalized reports. The nefarious circumstances of this case, and our subsequent anger and frustration, is all too easy for agents of injustice to take advantage of. It is now that we must pray for truth, not for publicity.

As the tumultuous year that is 2020 comes to an end, we can only hope that the new year will bring stability to the country. Gone are the usual new year wishes for prosperity, as most of us have lost something, or someone, dear to us. Whatever the new year brings, I pray that this year the average Juan’s needs in this period of recovery are given the utmost priority. For those in the leadership, this can be accomplished by putting the welfare of the individual Filipino ahead of their own ego.

The first opportunity they have in this new year is to acknowledge the concerns surrounding the ongoing war on drugs, and the effect it has had on the lives of tens of thousands of Filipinos. Last month, a preliminary examination from the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) revealed that there was reasonable basis to believe that crimes against humanity had been committed in connection with President Duterte’s “War on Drugs” (WOD). The report covered only the first three years of the Duterte presidency, beginning in July of 2016, up until March of 2019 – the same month Duterte’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute became effective, the treaty that created the tribunal that is the ICC. This may open the doors for the ICC prosecutor to begin a probe and full-on investigation on the reported violations of international law in the early part of this new year.

Though Malacañang has been rejecting the details of the report, and publicly repudiating the ICC’s jurisdiction, they have yet to deny the deaths of thousands of Filipinos. Though PDEA reports upwards of 6,000 deaths in connection with the WOD policy, multiple international human rights groups estimate that as many as 27,000 Filipinos have been victims of extra-judicial killings – a growing figure which initially prompted the Prosecutor’s office to commence the preliminary examination into the deaths of the alleged drug users, including those killed for allegedly resisting arrest. In fact, rather than denying the deaths, it has been seen as an accomplishment.

Did we forget that due process is a cornerstone of a civil, and just, society? Or will we continue to allow the powerful to live above the rule of law? Doesn’t rejecting this report’s findings purely on jurisdiction, rather than its merits, only prove that there is an absolute refusal to be criticized? When the pride of the leadership is deemed to be of greater importance than the lives of the tens of thousands murdered in the WOD, do we truly stand for the average Filipino?

The ICC report recognized that the WOD has sanctioned state-sponsored killings, which subsequently allowed human rights organizations to strengthen their call for human rights-based policing and an end to the “shoot first” motto reverberating in the Palace. Yet, the leadership has claimed that the government cannot be compelled to cooperate with the tribunal due to the written notification of withdrawal from the Rome Statute sent to the UN in 2018. On the sole basis of jurisdiction do they reject this report’s findings and any future attempts to compel the government to cooperate, but they conveniently seemed to forget about the conditions to the country’s withdrawal.

Article 127 of the Rome Statute provides that, despite a withdrawal, a State is not discharged of its obligations while it was Party to the Statute. Neither shall the withdrawal affect its cooperation with the tribunal in any investigation into the failure to uphold obligations while it was a State Party, up until one year after the notice of withdrawal was given. To put it plainly: the Philippines obligations to the ICC did not end on March 2018 when the notification of withdrawal was given. The obligations didn’t even end in March 2019, when the withdrawal became effective. The end of the State’s duty to uphold international law did not apply retroactively; rather, the State may still answer to any crimes committed during the time it was Party to the Statute.

Contrary to President Duterte’s claim, it is not divine law that gave the ICC the authority to investigate into the killings. Rather, it was legitimately ratified by the previous President and his legislative branch, all given authority by the people through the democratic process. Though President Duterte has every right to withdraw from the Statute, it cannot be said that the ICC never had authority when it is clearly written in the treaty that created the tribunal.

Having painted the ICC’s preliminary examination as an affront to Philippine sovereignty, the new narrative seems to be that our domestic courts can hold the President accountable if there is, indeed, crimes he must answer to. Malacañang has announced that our courts continue to function and, thus, anyone may bring a charge against the President. Having started off his term belittling the integrity of the judiciary by waging a war against a sitting Chief Justice this is rich, but I digress. This narrative fails to recognize the limitations of our domestic courts; for one, a sitting President cannot be prosecuted.

This is one of the many reasons why we rely on impartial, third-party observers like those sitting on the ICC; their power is not divine, and they are not omniscient, but they have the ability to gather evidence and give legal recommendations where our domestic courts cannot, or maybe where an officer of the court may be afraid to. This leads me to my second point: the culture of fear in criticizing the administration. Why would Malacañang suggest that the domestic courts are an option to bring a case against the President when the bodycount for extrajudicial killings run in the tens of thousands? Mixed with the fact that 2020 was the worst year on record for murders in the legal community, there has been no desire to empower lawyers to bring cases forward – everyday is a risk we must take, to pursue justice.

Denying the ICC’s jurisdiction is one thing, but denying the facts in order to best fit the narrative that the Philippines is “safer” due to the killings of alleged criminals is downright delusional. The die have been cast, and the family of the dead will finally receive answers. Though the form that justice will take is yet to be seen, there is no running away from the truth. The past four years of impunity is no longer Manila’s worst-kept secret; the ICC has put the spotlight on this administration and its failure to uphold basic human rights.

While this is certainly a report that would mar the administration’s legacy (Though many would say its beyond the point of repair), it is in the best interest of the country that pride is put aside and the leadership allows the tribunal to investigate the reports. If there is nothing to hide, there is nothing to fear. After all, haven’t we been fed the same line? 2021 should be the year of the Filipino, ahead of any one man’s ego.

With the number of positive COVID cases still on the rise, it is unsurprising that the demand for the newly-released vaccines continues to remain high worldwide, including the Philippines. In many of his earlier speeches to the nation, President Duterte paraded the vaccine as the only solution to the COVID pandemic, and that he had dealt with China and Russia on the acquisition of said vaccines. He also categorically stated that we will be back to normal by December. However, it is already January 2021 and the situation is even worse than before. There are two primary issues concerning the procurement of the vaccine: first, the empty threat of President Duterte to terminate the VFA if Pfizer does not provide the doses he demands, and second, the illegal smuggling and inoculation of unapproved Chinese vaccines to select soldiers and government officials.

Last December 26, in a speech with several Cabinet Secretaries present, President Rodrigo Duterte threatened the existence of the Visiting Forces Agreement with the United States on their ability to provide the Philippines with 20 million dosages of the Pfizer vaccine. Particularly, he said, “Kung hindi sila makadeliver ng maski minimum 20 million vaccines, they better get out. No vaccines, no stay here”. It is worth mentioning that President Duterte has previously sent a notice about the termination of the VFA in February 2020, but such has been suspended in June and November. Currently, the VFA will last until 2021, but such is uncertain given the diplomatic blackmail Duterte has resorted to.

Again, instead of blaming the government officials who botched the initial deal with Pfizer, which in turn led Singapore to acquire the vaccines ahead of the Philippines, President Duterte immediately passes the blame and points a finger to the United States. While Pfizer is a US-based company, it is a private corporation and nobody can compel it to supply more than what the US government had contracted it to buy. The decision to allocate the vaccines does not belong to the US government alone, and neither can the vaccines be given for free.

All of this is an obvious ploy on the part of President Duterte – giving the USA unreasonable demands and making it look like Pfizer deliberately refuses to provide the Philippines with the vaccines so that in the end, there will be more reason to acquire Chinese made vaccines instead, which is actually the preferred provider of the administration. Contrary to best practices used in other countries of procuring the safest and more effective vaccines President Duterte appears to be limiting its options to the Chinese vaccine with the least allowable potency and without a clear safety record compared to other alternative options. Given everything that could have been done to address the problem concerning the vaccines, I consider all President Duterte’s words as empty threats coming from a desperate leader. In fact, the reason why the Pfizer deal fell apart was partly due to President Duterte’s refusal to sign a non-disclosure agreement, and these threats appear to be almost amusing, as they tend to place the Philippines in an even worse situation which is endangering the lives of more Filipinos. Rather than finding solutions, the administration is creating even more problems for the nation.

As if this circus and myriad of errors committed by the administration is not enough, there comes another cycle of denial, admission, finger-pointing and illegal justification. This time, it concerns President Duterte’s admission regarding the administration of smuggled and illegal Chinese vaccines which have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, to military men and some key government officials. In particular, soldiers and members of the Presidential Security Group are those who were known to have been given the vaccine. Many government agencies and officials were left in the dark about the sudden and selective administration of the vaccine, including the Department of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, and even the Bureau of Customs which makes the entire process dubious.

Our laws are very clear. The FDA Law prohibits the importation, possession, distribution, and administration of the vaccine. In fact, the FDA Guidelines in reference to the Bayanihan Law lays down the legal framework and guidelines on how to import and use these vaccines. No exemption has been made for soldiers, and thus, it is clearly illegal. The Chinese vaccines used are not near the stages already achieved by Pfizer, Moderna, and Astra – Zeneca.

Defense Secretary Lorenzana stated that these vaccines were smuggled but justified, a statement that sadly betrays his character and reveals his loyalty to the President over his loyalty to the Country. In addition and as if to sound comical, Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque now justifies the use of the vaccines saying that such is a donation, and even likened it to a token and a simple Christmas present, similar to the birthday cake he received from his staff. This explanation is entirely ridiculous because even if such vaccines were given under the guise of a donation, receiving these is illegal under many laws – not only the FDA Law but also the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and even the Customs Code. Given the way the law is brazenly and openly flouted by our own government officials, it is no longer a surprise that the vaccine program is in a mess.

The most pressing problem still remains to be the COVID pandemic, which should be the priority of our government. However, it has proven itself incapable of securing a proper vaccine in time, and now, it resorts to blackmailing the U.S.A for doses of the Pfizer vaccine using the VFA as a bargaining chip, and there is also justification for the smuggling and use of illegal vaccines. The Philippines cannot fight the pandemic in such a mess. Ultimately, the sad but inevitable truth is that the real victims of the government’s incompetency are the citizens themselves, the very people who the administration is supposed to serve. Unless the government shapes up its act and starts to prioritize the people over personal self-interest, the Philippines will never be able to find a solution to the problems that have been plaguing the country.