The perils of choosing between Marcos Jr. and Duterte

The last SONA of President BBM and the continuing Maisog rallies of the Duterte group show palpable manifestations of the contrast between two political groups I’m both allergic to. The breakup of the so-called UniTeam, which was, after all, a marriage of convenience between two opportunistic trapos exposed that both sides aren’t the best option for the well-being of the people.

Recent events unmasked the factors between two leadership brands which I both detest: the Marcos brand concocted from the pro-US north and the Duterte brand made in China in the south. The midterm elections in 2025 will determine which brand will ignite more sparks from the electorate. I don’t relish being identified with the Marcos brand because it’s identified with martial law, alleged plunder of the nation's wealth, massive violation of human rights and corruption. The Duterte brand is no better, being identified with alleged extra-judicial killings, being looked into by the International Court of Justice, political opportunism and, like the Marcoses, family dynasty and transactional politics of patronage, and alleged indecent Chinese connections.

The first difference between Marcos and Duterte is political orientation and, if you will, ideology. Marcos is clearly pro-US and anti-China. In his less than three years in office, BBM visited America five times already. The Duterte administration was anti-US and pro-China. Duterte never visited the US but went back and forth to Beijing to rub elbows with Xi Jinping. Duterte also visited Vladimir Putin and was in the Kremlin, having a tete-a-tete with the dictator and invader of Ukraine. Duterte lambasted Presidents Obama and Biden and had kind words for Trump. BBM leans towards the West, including the US, EU, and NATO. Thus the lines are clearly drawn.

The choice is very clear and the distinctions well-defined. On this alone, the greater bulk of the Filipinos would rather embrace the American ideology of democracy, freedom, liberty, human rights, and free market enterprises. Surveys showed more than 90% preference for America and less than 5% percent for China. The Philippines and the US have a long history and tradition of being aligned under the same flag in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. The US gave us education from the days of the Thomasites and mentored our forefathers like Quezon, Osmeña, Roxas, and Quirino on the tenets of freedom and democracy. Thus, BBM has a clear advantage over Duterte on this criterion.

The second defining factor is the West Philippine Sea. The Duterte government allowed China to encroach into our territories and our exclusive economic zone. The Duterte administration squandered the huge impetus of our legal victory over our claims of the West Philippine Sea. Duterte became too subservient to Beijing and was suspected by many Filipinos of "selling out" our territorial integrity by failing to assert our sovereign rights and by treating Beijing with uncharacteristic accommodation as if national territory is negotiable. On the other hand, BBM is very strong in his official stand against China's illegal encroachments. Although there are still too many steps to be taken and too much work to be done, BBM's direction is clear and unequivocal.

The third distinction between Digong and BBM is that it was under Duterte’s watch that POGOs and many Chinese shenanigans flourished like mushrooms. The ban issued by BBM in his third SONA made the distinction between him and Digong very sharp and palpable. Allegedly because of the Duterte connection, the Pharmally Chinese group was reportedly able to corner billions worth of medical supplies, and this controversy is now under investigation, after having been exposed by former senator Richard Gordon in his Blue Ribbon investigation, in aid of legislation. The ban on POGOs was a slap to the face of Duterte by BBM because POGOs were largely identified with the Duterte regime. What matters most is that BBM now admits that these are fronts to prostitutions, kidnapping, torture, and other heinous transnational crimes and syndicates.

And so, if asked to choose between Scylla and Charybdis, in the coming midterm polls in 2025, I might be compelled to swallow the lesser evil. But I still hope and pray, at this point in time, that the likes of Leni Robredo, Bam Aquino, Leila de Lima, Chel Diokno, and Kiko Pangilinan would put up a third alternative. This much better and more decent option will be open to those who do not wish to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea.