Whose side is PBBM on?

I ask the question in the above title because it seems President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. has come out over the weekend, through the Malacañang press office, with a directive to the Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking for it to heighten its efforts against human trafficking.

The IACAT is currently in the bullseye of brickbats from an indignant public over requirements it issued that make up nothing short of an illegal and unconstitutional impairment of a citizen’s right to travel. If Marcos is not aware of the brickbats, the timing of his directive unmistakably sends a message of support for IACAT’s misguided initiative.

This seems quite insensitive for someone whose own foreign travels not only come frequently (12 as of last count as president) but the expenses (?392 million as of last reckoning) are being shouldered by the public through taxes paid even by many of those whose own travels are being impaired by the IACAT.

Not only that, but many of those whose travels are being impaired by the IACAT are the very same young would-be first-time travelers who gave Marcos a resounding historic and unprecedented popular mandate in the 2022 presidential elections. In a word, Marcos has just turned against his new demographic base.

And for what? Well, let me tell you what, because in all its clumsiness, the Malacañang press office inadvertently allowed the slip to show. It is not really about human trafficking per se. Malacañang said it is so the Philippines can “maintain its Tier 1 ranking, which is the highest ranking given by the US State Department.”

So this is all in keeping with American dictates. Our very own president is willing to play ball with the United States even if it meant unleashing an illegal and unconstitutional initiative against his own people. For what prize or reward is Marcos doing this? In the heated discourse over West Philippine Sea issues, the word “traitor” exploded. Do I now know who?

The Constitution says the right to travel cannot be impaired except in the “interest of national security, public safety and public health.” Human trafficking does not legally, logically, or even imaginatively fall into any or all of the above-mentioned three constitutional exemptions where the right to travel can be justifiably impaired. So whose side is PBBM on?

In truth, before Malacañang came out with the presidential directive, I was actually expecting Marcos to throw out the IACAT guidelines not only as a matter of executive prerogative but also as a signal to all that he fully understands how a mere inter-agency council cannot be more powerful or authoritative than the Constitution of the land.

Even without kowtowing to the dictates of the US State Department to earn “pogi” points for some undisclosed consideration, real or imagined in all naivete, any honest-to-goodness campaign against trafficking does not have to entail unconstitutional and illegal means to impair the right to travel or place the burden of proving innocence on the public.

All it takes is hard work, dedication, and good old-fashioned sleuthing. With so many law enforcers in and out of uniform, and intelligence funds oozing from every crack and orifice of a bloated bureaucracy, it should be a cinch to crack down on trafficking. But now IACAT not only burdens the public, it actually tells the real traffickers what to do. Just submit papers.