Mong Palatino

Blogging about the Philippines and the Asia-Pacific since 2004

About

@mongster is a Manila-based activist, former Philippine legislator, and blogger/analyst of Asia-Pacific affairs.

Published by Bulatlat

Since this was an election year, the most notable newsmakers were presidential candidates led by the frontrunners Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos Jr. and Leni Robredo. Decades or even years from now, historians will also recall the historic candidacy of labor leader Leody de Guzman.

The rapid spread of the Omicron variant in January revived lockdown measures across the world. It further delayed the reopening of face-to-face classes as schools adopted a hybrid teaching model. Booster shots were given but they proved inadequate in reversing the flawed and grossly anti-poor pandemic response of the Rodrigo Duterte administration. Marcos vowed to ditch the lockdown approach but he showed equal incompetence in managing a public health crisis by refusing to appoint a permanent Health secretary.

The country’s polarized political landscape was reflected during the campaign period. Kakampinks were impressive in manifesting their visible support for the Robredo-Pangilinan tandem, but disinformation-enabled automated magic delivered 31 million votes for Marcos-Duterte.

The new government and its troll apologists have consistently bragged about the supposedly high approval ratings of Marcos, but they proved meaningless when the country was plagued by runaway inflation and the resulting wage erosion. The peso-dollar exchange rate almost breached 56 pesos, inflation reached 7.7 percent, and the absurdly high price of onion (sibuyas) became the symbol of the rising cost of living. But Marcos logic insisted that “the peso is weak because the dollar is strong.”

Instead of empathizing with their constituents, politicians chose to normalize callousness. “I believe it is not that high” was Marcos’s tone-deaf response to the media when asked about the surging food and fuel prices. This uninformed and insensitive remark was surpassed only by Senator Cynthia Villar’s “I can live without onion” statement. It is unclear whether the 500 pesos Noche Buena grocery list of the Department of Trade and Industry included enough onions.

To solve hunger, a party list congressman inquired about the use of astronaut pill, the president’s son mansplained the benefits of planting dragonfruit, and the president’s sister enjoined the public to share her nostalgia for nutribun.

When he took his oath, Marcos assured the people that he is ready to serve. “Ang pangarap ninyo ay pangarap ko.” (Your dreams are also my dreams.) He preached unity even if he failed to stop his own party and former executive secretary from hurling vicious accusations against each other. He promised to bring down the price of rice to twenty pesos (bente pesos na bigas) although he later admitted that it will take at least three years to do this.

His campaign pledge captured public attention, in the same way that the proposal to distribute ten thousand pesos for every family (sampung libong ayuda kada pamilya) did wonders for Senator Alan Cayetano’s reelection bid.

Soon, it became evident that the government doesn’t have enough resources for social service programs. Unless of course, the item is similar to the 150 million pesos in confidential intelligence funds of the Department of Education. It is the same agency that allowed former Palace officials to purchase overpriced laptops that cost 58,000 pesos for each item.

To raise funds, Marcos’s ingenious directive is to legislate the creation of a Maharlika Investment Fund by pooling state resources. Not included in the fund resources are the 203 billion pesos in estate taxes and the remaining ill-gotten wealth that his family needs to settle with the national treasury. They should at least come clean about the bill of Imelda’s 93th birthday (the text on the giant billboard) bash in the Palace. Or the generous sponsors of Marcos’ Singapore getaway to watch the F1 race.

Marcos attended several high-profile global events but his presence (read: leadership) during emergency situations was inconsistent and unreliable. Thus, the trending question on social media: Nasaan ang Pangulo? (Where is the president?).

Typhoon Paeng threatened to wreak havoc in Luzon but the damage was minimized by the enormous blocking might of Sierra Madre. The Marcos government responded by green lighting the Kaliwa Dam project which will destroy the biodiverse habitats in South Luzon aside from displacing the communities of indigenous peoples.

After half a year in power, the dictator’s son proved that he was no champion of human rights and freedom of expression. Impunity has persisted as evidenced in the killing of radio broadcaster Percy Lapid. Tokhang became Bida but extrajudicial killings did not stop. Red-tagging remains the de facto policy of the state in dealing with critics and activists despite the claim of the Justice secretary that it is only a term invented by the Left.

Vice President Sara Duterte was called a talawan for skipping debates during the campaign period. The same ‘talawan’ politician would exhort the youth to render military service and support the revival of mandatory ROTC. She articulated the government’s foreign policy with her viral “fei shang, gao shing, chi, shishyang” video message. She expressed her gratitude to the president for her helicopter transport service although she would later disown her own statement.

If we were to believe a young actress that “history is tsismis”, would we remember 2022 as a year dominated by disinformation peddlers? But there were also inspiring icons like Hidilyn Diaz who gave more sporting glories to the country. The death of revolutionary leader Jose Maria Sison shone a spotlight on the continuing struggle for real democracy and justice in this part of the world. And the most important lesson that reinvigorated the woke generation was the post-election reflection about the unfinished fight for good governance. “Pag ika’y namulat, di na muling pipikit.” Laban!

Rebyu sa aklat na ‘Sa Aking Pagkadestiyero/In My Exile’ ni Joi Barrios. Sinulat para sa Bulatlat

Bilang dating migrante, ramdam ko ang kakaibang tipo ng lungkot na pinapahiwatig ng mga linyang ito:

Dito, taglay ko ang pilat na nasa noo ng bawat dayo,
Markado ngunit hindi nakikita,
na parang may tagabulag

O ang pangungulilang kapareha ng pananabik sa manggang kinagisnan:

Kalabisan nga ba
ang manghinayang,
na sa dinami-dami ng manga
na mapagpipilian,
wala ni isang
naaamoy ang tamis,
disin sana, matikman man lang
kaht init at lagkit
ng tag-araw
sa bayang iniibig

Dagdag bigat sa isip ang panunumbat ng sarili sa pagiging malayo sa minamahal, lalo’t ang mapagpasyang laban ay sa bayang iniwanan. Maraming paraan upang itawid ang distansiyang namamagitan subalit sa huli ang agwat ay nananatili. Panandalian at mababaw ang anumang ugnay na hatid ng birtwal na komunikasyon kung kaya’t napakalahaga ang bawat salitang bibigkasin. Natatangi kung nagtataglay ng hangaring lagpas sa sarili ang kabuluhan.

Pamilyar ang mga tula ni Joi Barrios at ang unang tatagos ay mga salitang gumuguhit ang lalim at talas. Saka lamang maaalala ng mambabasang aktibista kung saang rali, porum, at parangal narinig ang tula. Tinanghal sa harap ng madla, binasa upang pumukaw ng ahitasyon, pinalabas sa social media upang maabot ang mas marami.

Ilan ang nakabatid na sinulat pala ang umaapoy na prosa sa kabilang dako ng mundo? Hindi lang husay sa pagsulat kundi ang masinop at marubdob na pagsubaybay sa nangyayari sa lipunan. May hugot sa balita, kumiling sa pulso ng masa, nakaangkla sa tindig ng paglaban. Tila naglaho ang distansiya ng makata sa isang iglap at sa bisa ng ilang linya.

Sa panahong naghasik ng lagim si Rodrigo Duterte, ang boses ng mga peministang makata tulad ni Joi Barrios ay nagpalakas ng loob ng marami. Tinapatan ang lason ng disimpormasyon sa pagsandig sa katotohanan at malikhaing paghabi ng katwiran ng palaban. Habang tumindi ang pasismo, sinabayan ito ng atake sa politika ng Kaliwa. Sa digmaan ng naratibo, ang radikal na panig ni Joi Barrios ay hindi maikakaila:

Malinaw sa amin ang katwiran ng himagsik
At kung ang dahilan ay hindi mo pa rin mabatid,
Hayaang ihiwalay tayo ng guhit
Sa ating pagtindig

At mayroon siyang babala sa mga mandurukot ng alaala na ang layon ay siraan ang Kaliwa:

Siyang namumuhunan sa alaala,
para sa ginhawa at pagtamasa
habang isinusugal ang buhay ng kapwa
na ipinipinta na kulay pula
ay walang ibang inilalantad
kundi ang sariling pagkasalat,
Huwag, huwag na kaming idamay, isama
sa huwad na alaala.

Kung may malisyosong paggamit ng alaala, pinakita rin sa mga tula kung paano ang alaala ay puhunan ng makata upang magpugay sa mga kaibigan, kasama, at mahal sa buhay. Salalayan din ito upang idugtong ang pakikisangkot noon at ngayon sa pamamagitan ng pagkilala sa iba’t ibang ambag ng mga kakilala sa kilusang mapagpalaya. Makapangyarihang sandata ang alaala sa kamay ng makatang ang puso ay para sa paglikha ng bagong kasaysayan. Marami-rami na ang lumisan, at ang ating pighati ay pinalubha ng pandemya, subalit ang mahalaga ay may nagpapatuloy ng pakikibaka. Ang temang ito ay palagiang binabalikan ng makata sa kanyang mga tulang nag-iiwan ng hamon sa kabataang mambabasa.

Tiyak lalawak pa ang bilang ng mambabasa dahil ang mga tula ay may salin sa wikang Ingles bukod sa nailagay na rin ang ilan sa internet. May adbantahe ang pagbasa ng tula sa Filipino at ang salin nito dahil nakukumpara ang pakahulugan sa sariling wika at ang katumbas nito sa Ingles. Sinasalamin pa rin nito ang talino ng makata dahil tumatak sa dalawang bersyon ang palabang mensahe tungkol sa katapangan, pagpanig, at pag-ibig sa kapwa.

Malayo man ay malapit din. Tahanan ang mundo, ang tanaw ay sa lupang sinilangan, ang tula ay para sa pangmatagalang laban.

Written for The Diplomat

The Philippines recently marked the first 100 days in office of both President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Vice President Sara Duterte. Global news reports highlighted the key issues that Marcos has tackled since July but the work of Duterte has usually not been mentioned.

In the Philippines, the vice president is elected separately by the citizenry. The vice president has no official role in the government other than to wait and prepare to lead if the president is unable to fulfill his or her duty. It is important, therefore, to review Duterte’s first 100 days as it can provide a glimpse of her priorities and even the prospect of her becoming the country’s next president in 2028.

As education czar, Duterte faces a tough battle ahead since the country is still reeling from the devastating impact of the decision of the previous government to extend school closures during the pandemic. And despite her long list of activities as VP, it is inevitable that many will compare this to the impressive work of her predecessor, who overcame numerous challenges and succeeded in delivering public service and leadership through innovation and transparency.

Read more

Philippines Confirms New Envoy to China

Written for The Diplomat

The appointment of Jaime Florcruz as the Philippines’ new ambassador to China was confirmed on December 7 by the country’s Commission on Appointments.

Who is Florcruz and what will be his role in building closer relations with China under the government of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.? His response to legislators during the public hearing of his confirmation provided a glimpse of his thoughts on China and the country’s foreign policy directions.

Florcruz was a student activist who went to China in 1971 to witness the impact of the “cultural revolution.” He was forced to remain in China after President Ferdinand E. Marcos, the father of the incumbent president, banned him from returning for alleged subversion. He continued his studies in China and became a journalist who led TIME Magazine and CNN in Beijing until his retirement. His CNN profile described him as the dean of the foreign press corps in Beijing and the longest-serving foreign correspondent in China.

Read more

Written for The Diplomat

Three months after coming to power, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has failed to reassure the media community and the public that he will promote freedom of expression and reverse the impunity that worsened during the term of his predecessor. To be sure, there was little expectation that the son of a deposed dictator would be a champion of press freedom, but his election pledge of unity and healing could have been a good opportunity to affirm his commitment to protecting the public’s right to information.

Journalists continue to face violent threats, critics are slapped with harassment suits, and the public is wary about the impact of the mandatory SIM card registration law. The Marcos government should spend its next 100 days addressing the concern about the unceasing decline of freedom of expression in the country.

Read more

UN Report Charts Human Rights Decline in the Philippines

Written for The Diplomat

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has released its concluding observations about the human rights situation in the Philippines ahead of the country’s fourth Universal Periodic Review (UPR).

The 13-page report highlighted several issues that marked the deterioration of human rights protection in the country under the presidency of Rodrigo Duterte, whose six-year term ended in June.

Marcos is in Cambodia for the ASEAN Summit and East Asia Summit and will then travel to Thailand for the APEC summit, where he is expected to promote the country’s economic potential. He might repeat his earlier appeal at the U.N. General Assembly for urgent climate action and global cooperation.

But equally important in defending the country’s international standing is the UPR taking place on the other side of the world. Marcos may have diplomats and government representatives to articulate the position of the Philippines, but it will be difficult to deny that since taking office in July, he has said nothing substantial or concrete about his human rights agenda.

Read more

Philippines Assures UN that it Upholds Human Rights

Written for The Diplomat

The Philippine delegation to the fourth cycle of the country’s Universal Periodic Review in Geneva has assured United Nations member states that the government of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is committed to upholding human rights.

The UPR is an ongoing process and the real test for the Marcos government is whether it will back its promises with sustained action and implementation of substantial governance reforms. Marcos cannot do this without reversing the numerous repressive policies of his predecessor, who is incidentally his political ally and the father of his vice-presidential running mate. If he is serious about promoting human rights, he should be ready to antagonize Duterte and the well-entrenched officials of the previous government who are suspected of being responsible for some of the bloodiest human rights abuses in recent years.

Read more

Written for The Diplomat

The speech of Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. at the 77th Session of the United Nations General Assembly and his bilateral meeting with United States President Joe Biden could be the highlight of his recent six-day working visit in New York, but his talks in other less prominent public activities also provided a peek into his thinking and the priorities of his government.

For example, Marcos emphasized the role of agriculture in attaining food security during a talk in front of some members of the Filipino community in New York.

Marcos believes his state visit to the U.S. was a success because of the positive response to his call for unity on a global scale. What he didn’t mention was that the trip served as a symbolic victory for his family because prior to becoming president this year, he could not go back to the U.S. because he has a standing warrant of arrest for contempt of court in Hawaii.

It also went unmentioned in Marcos’ talks and public engagements that his trip coincided with the 50th anniversary of his father’s declaration of Martial Law in the Philippines. Maybe it was deliberately omitted in his speeches because he would have sounded hypocritical for talking about prosperity and openness while denying the lingering negative impact of Martial Law on the Philippine economy and democracy.

Read more

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Says His Father Was Not a Dictator

Written for The Diplomat

“You can say what you want, that’s your opinion. You’re wrong.”

This was Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s response to those who are calling him the son of a dictator. Marcos said this in a pre-recorded video interview with his goddaughter Toni Gonzaga, a TV actress who also hosted election rallies of Marcos during the campaign period. The interview was uploaded on YouTube on September 13 and aired on a new TV network owned by a political ally of the president.

It marks the first time that the president has agreed to a one-on-one interview after his proclamation in May. It is telling that the interview was not done by a member of the press, which reflects the president’s refusal to be questioned by journalists he deems biased against his family.

Read more

Published by the Philippine Daily Inquirer

The court order granting a three-hour furlough to Reina Mae Nasino was narrowly interpreted by the police and jail authorities to deprive a grieving mother of a decent moment to bury her dead child.

Authorities will probably inform the court that they complied with the order by bringing Reina Mae to the cemetery. They will probably cite various bureaucratic reasons to justify why additional security measures were enforced, such as the overkill deployment of heavily armed troops, the police-directed snatching of a coffin from the funeral march, the handcuffing of a mother unable to hug her child for the last time, and the driving away of mourners inside the cemetery.

How will the court treat this tone-deaf response from the Philippine National Police and the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology? We ask, since our previous pleadings on behalf of Reina Mae and Baby River were rejected despite our appeals for humanitarian consideration, because the court chose to uncritically accept the flimsy excuses of police and jail authorities.

It is when we fail to see the urgency of making an extra effort to protect human rights that tyrants are enabled to commit impunity. Our indifference allows the powerful to oppress the weak. Our greed for state-sponsored rewards, promotion in the bureaucracy, and political patronage can blind us to perform acts that legalize injustice. We equate the privileges we enjoy with the perpetuation of this flawed system that we lose our sense of humanity by refusing to acknowledge that even some of our ministerial duties in the bureaucracy can fatally affect the lives of the innocent.

Authorities are now invoking laws, regulations, manuals, health protocols, and court orders as part of their rejoinder to accusations that they trampled on the rights of a grieving mother and her three-month-old baby. It is more accurate to say that they conspired to commit these barbaric actions in partisan support of the political directives of the Duterte regime.

The Duterte administration should be held accountable for the violence that marred the burial of Baby River. But it is also clear to us that there are officials, agencies, and institutions that made this happen and continue to be remorseless for the cruelty they did, and might be even deluding themselves that they accomplished a good deed in the service of the nation.

January 2022. Winter Olympics in “a sea of repression”, anniversary of a coup, and a new law against workplace harassment. Will there be ‘sportswashing” of China’s human rights situation during the Winter Olympics? Myanmar’s crackdown on journalists and dissenters continues ahead of coup anniversary. Pakistan enacts a new law that aims to protect women from workplace harassment. Read more.

February 2022. Women in focus: Standing up to attacks and defending the rights of all. Looking ahead to International Women’s Day, 8 March, this brief features stories of women who are overcoming various challenges to create a safer civic space for all: journalists facing persecution, students protesting the hijab ban in south India, a Sri Lankan lawyer testifying about human rights abuses, and striking Naga World hotel workers in Phnom Penh who are resisting persistent government intimidation. Read more.

March 2022. Civil society groups push back against Asia’s repressive new laws. From Myanmar’s ‘digital coup’ to Cambodia’s national internet gateway, several Asian countries have either adopted or are trying to push through new laws and regulations that threaten freedom of expression. But civil society groups and journalists are pushing back and mobilizing public awareness and resistance against these repressive measures. Read more.

Written for The Diplomat

The government of Philippine President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. this week submitted a record 5.268 trillion pesos ($94 billion) 2023 budget to the House of Representatives. This is the highest-ever spending proposal sent to Congress.

Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Secretary Amenah F. Pangandaman described the proposed bill as “proactive and resilient… designed to withstand future risks, challenges, and shocks.” She added that the budget reflects priority sectors of the Marcos government which include education, infrastructure development, health, agriculture, and social safety nets.

Independent think-tank Ibon Foundation summed up the weaknesses of the first budget bill of the Marcos government: “Import-dependent infrastructure, debt interest payments, and security forces are given far more importance than education, health, social welfare, farmers, and labor.

Read more

Making Sense of the Philippines’ Latest Poverty Statistics

Written for The Diplomat

More Filipinos are poorer today compared to 2018, according to the latest official data released by the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA).

Citing its Family Income and Expenditure Survey, the PSA said the country has 19.99 million individuals living below the poverty threshold. This represents 18.1 percent of the population. In 2018, there were 17.67 million poor Filipinos. Meanwhile, the number of “food-poor” individuals increased by 1.01 million. The PSA also reported a 7.8 percent unemployment rate, which is equivalent to 3.71 million jobless Filipinos.

The poverty situation could be worse because the PSA survey was done in 2021, and its poverty threshold is considered unrealistic by other experts. Converted into U.S. dollars, a person belonging to a family of five members only needs to earn $1.41 per day in order to survive and meet his or her daily food requirements, according to the Philippine government.

Read more

Published by Bayan Metro Manila

The police displayed utter disrespect towards the Nasino family for deploying dozens of armed troops when they escorted Reina Mae Nasino to attend the wake of her child Baby River.

Authorities lied when they claimed that they lacked the personnel who can guard Nasino for the three-day furlough originally granted by the court.

Instead of allowing Nasino a longer time to grieve with her family, the police tried three times to forcibly escort Nasino back to the Manila City Jail even if the three-hour visit allowed by the court was not yet over.

BJMP officers carried high-powered arms in a wake, provoked tension when they tried to snatch a young mother from her dead child, and traumatized a grieving family.

BJMP is concocting a lie by arguing that Nasino is a high-security inmate. Even the dubious search warrant used by the police to raid the Bayan Manila office in Tondo in November 2019 didn’t mention Nasino’s name. Nasino is also far from being a flight risk since she is naturally expected to be present at her child’s burial on Friday. Hindi tatakas ang isang nanay na may anak na ililibing.

We see no reason for the insane deployment of troops other than to intimidate Nasino, instill fear in the defiant family, and create a chilling effect in the ranks of activists.

They miserably failed since Nasino asserted her right to speak, her family and friends protected her, and activists stood their ground in resisting the strong-arm tactics of the BJMP.

The BJMP only created an unnecessary disturbance, distracted a family in mourning, and exposed their callous behavior.

Our lawyers are already seriously considering the filing of contempt charges.

We insist that Nasino was only right to share her sentiments to the public by talking to journalists who were also at the wake. We didn’t see authorities making a ruckus when VIP inmates gave media interviews in the past. Even the convicted General Palparan was given the chance to speak from inside his cell when a pro-Duterte blogger interviewed him.

The misbehavior of the BJMP today reflected the cruel acts of injustice committed against Nasino and fellow activists. From being charged with a trumped-up case based on fabricated evidence to the indifference shown by the court to her appeals not to be separated from her baby, Nasino was made to feel the full brunt of state-sponsored violence.

We deplore the inhumane directives given by the rabid anti-communist officials of the Duterte government. This heavy-handed approach has the obvious backing of top levels in the bureaucracy. They are merciless, heartless, yet petty and pathetic for being arrogant against a young grieving mother.

We will not back down as we continue to join the Nasino family in mourning the death of Baby River. The fight for justice continues. Meanwhile, the BJMP and police should back off and let Reina Mae Nasino bury her child in peace.

Written on February 2018

Our emphatic response is no, but some are flaunting the question as if the issue is already settled. That the Left is guilty of political opportunism by collaborating with the government of Rodrigo Duterte; that it shed its revolutionary credentials by joining Duterte’s Cabinet; and that it was already shamefully late when it severed ties with Duterte.

In some forums, the Left’s so-called ‘unprincipled alliance’ with Duterte is tagged for enabling the latter’s bloody ‘war on drugs’. Some even insinuate that the Left had a role with Duterte’s rise to power in local politics, including the operationalization of the notorious ‘Davao Death Squad’ (DDS).

It is easy to dismiss these claims as coming from partisan groups which are hopelessly anti-Left. But since these allegations are being peddled in corporate media and other opinion-making institutions, it is necessary to clarify some of the Left’s recent political decisions and debunk the moralizing posture of its ideological rivals.

The Left is both weak and strong in the eyes of its adversaries. It is often ridiculed as a ‘spent force’ but now it is being held accountable for enabling Duterte to kill, kill, and kill. The word ‘enable’ is uncritically used perhaps to appear persuasive in putting the Left to task for allowing Duterte to go on a violent rampage. But assuming that the Left ignored Duterte from the start, do critics really believe that it would have prevented the Tokhang carnage? That Duterte would be unable to carry out his vicious war against the poor because the Left was not a part of his administration?

Another problematic term is ‘alliance’. It must be emphasized that the Makabayan bloc endorsed the candidacy of Grace Poe, not Duterte. Furthermore, the Left said it is ready to sign a formal alliance with the Duterte government but only AFTER the finalization of the peace process.

The nomination of some Leftists to the Cabinet was indeed a positive gesture in resuming the peace talks. Some would probably interpret this as an informal partnership. But what a unique relationship! Leftist Cabinet members refusing to be apologists of anti-poor policies, activist ‘allies’ denouncing neoliberal prescriptions and human rights abuses, and communist rebels defending the legitimacy of the armed struggle. Compare this to the Yellow social democrats who blindly embraced the follies of the Noynoy Aquino government while identifying themselves in international conferences as anti-capitalist activists.

There was no lull in the protest movement even during the period when the Left was supposed to be a friend of Duterte. Critics are therefore lying when they insist that the Left remained silent while Duterte was unleashing his brutal wars.

Did the Left commit an error when it negotiated peace with a politician like Duterte? Context matters here. The peace process had been stalled for many years already and so the offer of the new government to resume the talks was seen as an opportunity to advance concrete proposals for substantial social and economic reforms. It also partly eased the living conditions in some communities heavily bombarded with military activities.

Looking back, it was remarkable that the National Democratic Front did not allow itself to be bullied into diluting its political program. Rather than capitulating to the fentanyl-driven whims of Duterte, it negotiated the prioritization of the Comprehensive Agreement on Social and Economic Reforms.

Indeed, Duterte is a sham socialist and his trapo background is not under dispute. But why did the Left choose to talk rather than fight Duterte?

Because unlike his predecessors, Duterte made the unprecedented move of providing a space for the Left to work within the bureaucracy. And to the surprise of mainstream pundits, the Left welcomed the chance to demonstrate its brand of leadership without losing sight of its strategic political goals like the signing of a conclusive peace agreement.

If the Left rejected Duterte’s offer, most likely it would still be mocked as a slow and dogmatic movement by the same critics who are accusing it today of collaborationism and opportunism.

Whether it supported or opposed the Duterte government, the Left is incapable of being correct from the point of view of groups which wanted it defeated.

But perhaps to the great dismay of conservative and pseudo-progressive political forces, the Left refused to surrender the struggle, it preserved its strength despite Duterte’s Marcosian tactics, and it continued to challenge Duterte’s tyrannical rule by stepping up its fighting capabilities.

If some opposition groups are squeamish about joining forces with the Left because the latter ‘colluded’ with Duterte, they must be reminded that no one has prevented them from building their own campaign that would unite and mobilize the people against the rising dictatorship.

Their failure to expand their ranks is often overlooked because their ranting against the organized Left is louder. They wanted to forget their political impotence by denouncing the Left for not doing what they think the Left should be doing in behalf of them.

Meanwhile, understanding the situation today requires the naming of groups and forces which backed Duterte and the role of various power blocs in allowing him to consolidate his presidency. Hence, it is valid to analyze and discuss the impact of the Left’s dealings with the incumbent government vis-à-vis the influence of other political forces. But some anti-Left groups expose their rabid partisanship when they focus exclusively on the NatDem movement as if it alone is responsible for whatever the ruling party is doing to the country. Political objectivity is shelved to engage in anti-Left nitpicking.

How duplicitous for the anti-Left to sensationalize the alleged tactical alliance of the Natdem movement with Duterte while conveniently failing to explain the real existing support given by other political factions to the incumbent government. They invented the fiction about the Left enjoying a prominent status in the government while deliberately understating the culpability of pro-Duterte forces and personalities.

If they really wanted accountability, then they should turn their hostility towards the oligarchs and other campaign donors, the country’s major political parties, the coercive instruments of the state, political dynasties, LGU officials, foreign military powers, and even the religious right.

But for the fanatical anti-Left, it is the Left and only the Left which should be held responsible for Duterte’s atrocities.

They are unwilling to shame their local and foreign patrons, they are afraid to antagonize local and foreign powers, and they cannot afford to insult the persons and institutions which can promote their careers.

The opportunist posturing of the anti-Left is proof that Duterte’s legacy is the boosting of red scare in the country.

Even the history of the Left in Davao is indirectly linked to the formation of the DDS and the subsequent killing spree in the city. Is Duterte’s violent record an offshoot of the Left’s urban insurrection experiment? The framing of the question is simplistic since it doesn’t capture other essential issues such as the enduring effect of warlordism, feudal oppression, and local political dynamics that engendered the Left-led resistance in the region. To accept the argument that the presence of an aggressive Leftist movement in a specific locality could usher the rise of a political creature like Duterte, without giving a comprehensive critique of the local political economy, is tantamount to blaming the right of the people to dissent. This is an extension to the claim of politicians that Leftist organizing is anti-development because it undermines rural productivity and prevents foreign investments.

What Duterte and the anti-Left establishment have in common is their desire to invalidate the politics of the Left. Perhaps they both know that it is the Left which can successfully lead a nationwide opposition to the return of another despotic rule. For Duterte, he must attack the Left to survive. He is supported by the anti-Left establishment which can never tolerate the existence of a movement that espouses genuine revolutionary politics.