‘Choose now’

We all have to make choices but what often determines success is if we are resolute in achieving our choices and just how good our sense of timing is.

More often than not, the most important choices, even determining correct political outcomes, all fall victim to deferment, delay or our “it’s too early” playing it safe mindset.

Last Friday, someone told me about a group of “Tanders,” elder gentlemen, active politicians, businessmen, as well as ex-military officials who were all politely debating on the ideal leader for the Philippines after PBBM.

From what I was told, they were not plotting to form a temporary government or a political party or lead an EDSA 4 by February 2026. They were just getting together for a great lunch and trying to stay relevant by “talking and playing politics.”

The direction of the conversation/debate was toward properly understanding the country’s overall political situation, the direction of the “investigation” into the massive corruption under the Marcos Jr. government and if PBBM could “crash and burn” if he fails to convince Filipinos that the hunt for and prosecution of the corrupt is real.

The “Tanders” pondered where the planned impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte is heading, and what should be done next if any of the serious scenarios do take place.

In fairness to the “Tanders,” they actually talked and considered who should lead the country post Marcos Jr. and from there, they went through a shortlist of young leaders, the good points, weak points and challenges.

The “Tanders” did not want any unconstitutional action such as People Power or worse. They agreed that it was best for the country to stick to the Constitution. But after that, their lunch hour started to sour in debate.

If they stick to the Constitution, it follows that the vice president would have to take over a presidential vacancy. The politicians in the group balked at the idea because they are the ones pushing for the impeachment of Sara Duterte, and as far as they were concerned it was a case of “anybody but Sara.”

Based on the patchwork narration, I imagine the response of the businessmen was: well, that brings us back to the impeachment. How sure are you that you can impeach Sara?

You no longer have access to hundreds of millions of pesos to give out as incentive to supporters of impeachment, unless those who stole the most are desperate enough to cough up a few billions.

I myself have wondered, if VP Sara is impeached and PBBM was out of office by force of circumstance, who then would benefit the most?

Will there be a major power struggle in the Senate and Congress to be next in line right after the impeachment, or will the Senate go: enough is enough – Sara stays!

Returning to the “Tander Dialogues,” they all concluded that a choice had to be made on who to support as the future leader or president of the Philippines in 2028. Round and round they went over Vico, Magalong, Leni, Ping, etc. but no choice could be made.

The consensus was that all those on the administration side were politically damaged or tainted by the corruption scandals, while the ideal Young Guns were unfortunately too young constitutionally and politically untameable.

Then a businessman boldly suggested that the obvious choice for both the constitutionalists and business side was VP Sara Duterte. Certainly not a popular choice to those who used her, betrayed her, jailed her father and now want to impeach her.

But choices have to be made. For the Tanders against Sara it was a matter of losing all their influence and connection in the future. They could even be subjected to the same investigation that they did to VP Sara.

Come to think of it, if Filipinos really want “Justice” from the massive infrastructure and congressional corruption, there would be a greater possibility of that happening under Sara Duterte.

As the saying goes, “Hell has not known the fury of a woman scorned” and Sara Duterte certainly has all the right reason to prove that if anyone is guilty of corruption, it would be all of her accusers.

Going back to choosing, we all find ourselves regularly having to choose who to follow, who to elect, who to idolize or who to believe in. But in the current environment, many people are reluctant to show their cards.

They fear bashing, haters and being cancelled. A few individuals or groups publicly wave their colors and their flags more for publicity, presence or participation.

What is lacking is commitment, strategy and correct timing.

Consensus is good but principled commitment runs deeper. Rise or fall, we must each have courage in our commitment, and you don’t necessarily get that by being a follower.

If you share principles and aspirations, speak out and lend your voice or align with the shared vision and put your money or time where your mouth is.

The Tanders were talking about what to do for 2027. But by then, it’s too late because where you are now a small group of supporters, you will be just someone else in the crowd of 2027 to 2028.

Perhaps it would help if folks read all of chapter 24 of the book of Joshua in the Bible. For today I quote verse 15:

“And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the river, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell.

“But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”