A ‘tatay’ we do not deserve

The protests were initially widespread over the arrest of former president Duterte and his confinement at the International Criminal Court’s Detention Center. Three weeks hence, the rallies have faded in frequency and intensity as people begin to accept Mr. Duterte’s fate.

To keep the momentum going, however, Duterte’s army of vloggers/propagandists have been on overdrive to peddle three messages – that Duterte is justified for the killings; that his arrest was illegal and that he is a “father figure” to Filipinos deserving of pity and pardon.

Let’s dive into it. Whether or not Duterte is justified for his crimes is for the ICC to determine. Duterte should consider himself lucky for being accorded due process – a privilege he denied his victims.

Was his arrest illegal? The Supreme Court has already ruled that there was “no clear and unmistakable right to warrant a TRO” to halt Duterte’s arrest and to prevent the Philippine government from cooperating  with the ICC. The SC further opined that the Philippines is indeed obligated to cooperate with the ICC since the crimes occurred while the country was a State Party to the Rome Statute, from 2011 to 2019.

Is Duterte our “tatay” or father figure? This is the narrative I take great exception to. Lest this false narrative sway our countrymen to believe, we will all do well to remember how Duterte ruled and the many transgressions he committed against our people.

It was a wasted presidency. The portrayal of the drug problem as the most serious threat to national security and national development was a false preposition. As a result, government squandered valuable resources on a problem that was not as urgent as others. Time and resources would have been better spent battling corruption, strengthening social services, increasing economic competitiveness and bolstering national defense.

Promises undelivered. He promised to fix the drug problem in three, then reneged to six and 12 months. He failed. The same for criminality. He failed that one, too.

I question Mr. Duterte’s sincerity in all these. Because he would not have appointed Michael Yang as Presidential Adviser (a man with links to Chinese drug and criminal triads) if he was indeed earnest. The fact that his sons are presently being investigated for allegedly smuggling P6.4 billion worth of shabu reeks of narrative manipulation.

He ruled by violence and fear. The drug war was never about solving the drug problem per se. Rather, it was meant to create a “chilling effect” to allow him to rule with impunity. He used senator Leila de Lima as an example. Fear was used to bamboozle lawmakers to bend to his will. Red tagging and inclusion in the narco list were meant to shush those who opposed him.

He used the presidency to settle scores. The ombudsmen, Sandiganbayan and a compliant Congress succumbed to Mr. Duterte’s lust for revenge. He settled the score with Leila de Lima, the Lopezes of ABS-CBN and the Prietos of the Inquirer, among others.

Dutertenomics failed. Dutertenomics was all about firing-up the economy through massive spending, by way of debt. It did nothing to repair the failing agricultural and manufacturing sectors. Neither did Dutertenomics create new revenue-generating industries. We still rely on electronics, IT-BPOs and remittances – industries developed before Duterte’s time.

He exacerbated corruption. He reversed the advances made by the Aquino administration which rendered pork barrel taboo. He restored the use of pork to buy legislative loyalty.

He gave himself a whopping P4.5 billion in confidential and intelligence funds. In contrast, president Aquino spent only P500 million for this purpose.

And then there is the Pharmally heist where he green-lit, defended and blocked the investigation of P11 billion worth of overpriced test kits and PPEs. He mercilessly carried-out the heist at the time the country was on its knees.

Duterte’s example deepened the culture of corruption in government with dire, long-term consequences.

He was an embarrassment. He normalized profanity, indecency and misogyny. He insulted foreign leaders behind their backs but never had the courage to confront them. His infamy eroded Philippine equity abroad.

He worked for Chinese interest. He was ruthless to his countrymen but a submissive mouse towards China. He unilaterally shifted our foreign policy to favor Beijing.

What I find most unforgivable was his refusal to enforce the binding decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration which decided in the Philippines’ favor in the case involving Philippine sovereignty over parts of the South China Sea. His inaction protected Chinese interest to the detriment of Philippine sovereignty. This gave Beijing the time and space to build structures in the Spratlys and militarize the disputed waters. I consider this an act of treason.

Duterte opened the country to POGOs despite its social costs and abetted Chinese investments in Dito Telecoms despite its  threat to national security. He allowed visa-free entry for Chinese, flooding the country with undesirables and operatives of the Chinese Communist Party.

Despite Duterte’s loyalty, Beijing never saw the need to make good on its promise to invest $24 billion in the country. They counted him as a given and a traitor to his own people – a stark contrast to the respect the Chinese accorded to Indonesian president Joko Widodo. In the end, Mr. Duterte ended up with nothing to show for his allegiance, not even the courtesy of political asylum.

He mocked God. I will never forget the day – June 22, 2018, when Mr. Duterte said, “Who is this stupid God? This son of a b**ch is really stupid if that’s the case.”

Again, I take exception to the “tatay” moniker – not for me, not for my countrymen. The Filipino deserves a paternal role model who is decent, morally upright, intelligent, God-fearing and a patriot.

*      *      *

Email: andrew_rs6@yahoo.com. Follow him on Twitter @aj_masigan