WHETHER we’re talking of the “war on drugs” and the decision to avoid international sanctions by quitting the International Criminal Court, the “war on corruption” and the plan to make the controversial Janet Napoles a “state witness,” the “war on the Supreme Court Chief Justice” and the need to remove her without going through the required impeachment process, the “war against the communists” while strengthening the position of the President’s communist appointees, the need to keep our national territory and national dignity intact while allowing the Chinese to occupy and fortify areas within our “exclusive economic zone” in the Spratlys, close down the world-famous Boracay island for a year so a giant casino operator from Macau could replace the small Filipino entrepreneurs operating on the beaches, very little seems to make sense anymore. The state is failing, but we can no longer blame everything on President Rodrigo Duterte alone; we must take part of the blame ourselves.

The ‘war on drugs’ and the ICC

Thousands of small fry have been killed, while every big fish has gone scot-free in the “war” which began on July 1, 2016. This has made DU30 “the most feared” President we’ve ever had—for that reason, the “most popular,” according to our crooked pollsters and propagandists. The political opposition has scuttled itself; the House of Representatives has morphed into a political gang that could pass the most morally outrageous and patently unconstitutional bill at the drop of a coin. And the Senate is about to make the boxer-senator Manny Pacquiao and a few more like him the pride of our morality and intellect.





We praised and thanked God when Archbishop of Lingayen-Dagupan and then-president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines Socrates Villegas, Auxiliary Bishop of Manila Broderick Pabillo, Bishop of Caloocan Pablo David, and several other bishops, priests and religious spoke against the killings. We wished Mindanao lawyer Jude Sabio good luck when he went to the International Criminal Court (ICC) at the Hague to complain about the crimes of humanity that allegedly began in Davao in the 1980s. And we waited for the day when ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda would finally act on the complaint. But we kept our peace for the most part.

The national interest

Last week, when it became apparent that Bensouda’s “examination” could lead to an “investigation” and the filing of charges against certain respondents, DU30 decided to withdraw the Philippines from the 1998 Rome Statute that created the ICC rather than risk being charged with high crimes at the Hague. How did we, as a nation, react? Very poorly indeed. No one of political consequence ever asked DU30 whether or not it was the right thing to do, whether or not it was in the national interest.

In the Senate, without whose concurrence the President could not have ratified the Rome Statute in 2011, the only question raised was whether DU30 could renounce the Rome treaty without the concurrence of the Senate. Of course, he could; the Constitution does not require it. But did the Senate deserve to be at least consulted? This was a requirement of a functioning constitutional government. But it did not happen. Nobody ever asked what national interest was served or damaged, while serving DU30’s purely personal interest.

Yet the hemorrhage was manifest. We lost the right to be treated as a nation which takes our treaty commitments seriously, and we lost the right to protect ourselves from serious crimes of international concern committed by thugs, not necessarily the President. Should Bensouda’s examination develop into case before DU30’s withdrawal from the ICC takes effect on March 15, 2019, and should the evidence point to PNP Chief Bato de la Rosa or Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre 2nd, and other personalities rather than to DU30 himself, our withdrawal from the court would have put these non-state parties beyond its reach.

And now this puzzler from the Department of Justice. A panel of DoJ prosecutors has cleared two notorious police characters named Peter Lim and Kerwin Espinosa, allegedly because of weak evidence. Peter Lim is a Cebu-based “businessman” whom DU30 himself has tagged as a “drug lord,” despite their allegedly being “kumpadres,” while Kerwin Espinosa was reported to have admitted being involved in drugs when the police killed his father, Mayor Rolando Espinosa of Albuera, Leyte, inside the subprovincial jail in Baybay, Leyte on November 5, 2016.

“I am the drug lord, not my father,” Kerwin was reported to have confessed. So how did it happen that the ageing mayor, while professing non-involvement in drugs, was killed inside his jail by policemen at 4 o’clock in the morning, while his son who had broken down in Dubai upon learning of his father’s death and cried he was the one doing drugs, was later cleared of any criminal involvement?

DU30 himself was reportedly scandalized and was quoted as saying that the justice secretary should replace Lim and Espinosa inside their cell. But nothing else has happened. DU30’s reported “surprise” over the DoJ action reminds me of the shock experienced by then-President Ferdinand Marcos in the early months of Martial Law in 1973, when he learned of a strong financial lobby to downgrade the impending penalty for the Chinese drug manufacturer Lim Seng who was being tried by a military tribunal. Marcos was so incensed that he decided to personally review the findings of the military tribunal and decided to impose the death sentence on the convicted drug manufacturer. Lim Seng was executed by musketry on January 15, 1973.

Fortunately for Peter Lim and Kerwin, and Aguirre too, DU30 does not appear inclined to follow Marcos’ example. He seems more focused on the ICC affair. Apparently convinced he had scored internationally with his tantrum, DU30 used his speech before the graduating class of the Philippine Military Academy in Baguio on Sunday to call upon other governments to follow his lead against the ICC treaty. As host of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit last year, DU30 probably thought he could count on the Asean heads to make common cause with him.

But nobody sees in his anti-ICC act, any hint of diplomatic achievement.

The ‘war on corruption’

As shocking as DU30’s announced ICC withdrawal and the DOJ’s dismissal of charges against two well-known alleged drug dealers was the plan to make Janet Napoles, the alleged mastermind of a P10-billion pork barrel scam during the Aquino administration, as a “state witness” in the prosecution of those involved. The alleged P10 billion turned out to be small change compared to the nearly P200 billion which B.S. Aquino 3rd and his Budget Secretary Florencio “Butch” Abad had siphoned off from the Treasury through their constitutionally outlawed Disbursement Acceleration Program. But for months on end, this was the only story that hogged the front-page headlines.

When Napoles finally “surrendered” to Aquino in Malacañang, she was received like visiting royalty and was personally escorted by the President to Camp Crame. An exclusive story which I wrote at the time said Napoles, accompanied by one of Aquino’s spokesmen, had a private meeting with Aquino in the morning, then returned in the evening for her formal “surrender.” There were strong suggestions even then that the government utilize her as “state witness,” but these failed to prosper after she was arrested on charges of “illegal detention” of her alleged relative and agent. She was recently freed from these charges.

The fear then was that Aquino would use Napoles against his political enemies; the fear now is that DU30 would use Napoles against Aquino and his associates. In one Senate hearing, Napoles had pointed to Butch Abad as the one who had taught her the “tricks” of the “pork barrel” trade. However, the main objection now is that whereas state witnesses are usually the least guilty in any conspiracy, Napoles appears to be the most guilty in the public mind, despite the principle of presumption of innocence of the accused.

Roque’s tweet on Napoles

This presents one serious problem to the presidential spokesman Harry Roque. On April 23, 2014, when the idea of Napoles being made state witness was being mooted by the Aquino administration, lawyer Harry Roque tweeted as follows: “If Janet Napoles becomes state witness, they might as well admit all Senatongs and Tongressmen as state witnesses against the opposition. Where is Justice in this country? It appears crime does pay here!”

What happens to Roque now?

Removing Sereno

Bent on removing Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Malacañang mobilized its forces to pressure her to quit while an impeachment complaint filed by lawyer Lorenzo Gadon remained in the House committee on justice. She refused. Her colleagues called on her to go on indefinite leave and she did. The Solicitor General filed a “quo warranto” petition against her, to demand “by what warrant” she occupies her position as Chief Justice. The petition is now pending before the court. Malacañang tried to mobilize the lower courts and their employees to demand Sereno’s resignation.

In one column, I pointed out that if this went through, then nothing would prevent the Armed Forces of the Philippines from demanding the resignation of their Commander in Chief. Apparently realizing the real possibility of this happening, Malacañang called off the move to use the courts on Sereno. On Monday, the House justice committee finally voted to impeach her on six charges. The House plenary will now have to act on this and formally impeach the Chief Justice. Then the Articles of Impeachment will go to the Senate.

Some lawyers who have read the charges fear the Senate might dismiss the petition outright. In an impeachment trial, there may not be 16 senators who would find against the respondent. In the impeachment trial of then Chief Justice Renato Corona, Aquino had to bribe 19 of the 20 senator-judges to convict and remove the respondent. Some of those senators will still be sitting as senator-judges. What can we expect if a trial does take place? I dare not predict anything.

The Boracay cesspool

On February 9, DU30 described Boracay island, which attracts countless tourists despite the negative things they hear about the government, as a “cesspool.” The secretaries of environment, tourism and local government quickly moved to recommend the closure of the island for at least one year to allow a thorough cleanup. And just as quickly the news began to surface that a giant casino operator in Macau, in partnership with a local firm, will put up a $500-million casino resort that will replace virtually all commercial activities in Boracay.

This appears to be the latest concession to the Chinese, who are also buying up large tracts of agricultural lands in Isabela and other parts of Luzon through dummies, after having occupied the Philippine-denominated reefs and shoals in the Spratlys, and flooded the country with hundreds of thousands of Chinese nationals, reminiscent of the wave of Japanese workers who came to the Philippines before the Japanese invasion.

The rot is too much

Rot upon rot has piled upon the country since DU30 became President, and it has become terribly unfair to expect him to save us from all the problems, even though they are mostly of his own making. It’s not only our democracy that is in crisis. Our entire nationhood is in crisis, even our own humanity is too. DU30 cannot save us, we have to save ourselves, and we can only do so by making everyone responsible for themselves and their brothers.

fstatad@gmail.com