Subverting democracy: How a popular, elected leader can impose authoritarian rule

This from the perspective of a journalist looking at non-theoretical realities

(I delivered this short piece at the just-ended International Conference of the University of the Philippines Third World Studies Center to mark its 40th year. I was part of a panel to discuss “Authoritarianism and Democratic Governance with particular focus on the current socio-political conditions of the Rodrigo Duterte administration”. – Raissa Robles)

Good afternoon.

I am greatly honored to be part of this prestigious international conference with such distinguished speakers and controversial topics.

Normally, I would be in the audience scribbling notes trying to meet a deadline.

But today, here I am before you due to several serendipitous events in my life.

Second, during Marcos’ Martial Law, I wrote a 14-part investigative report in Business Day newspaper on how Marcos manufactured his own Constitution via a duly-elected but co-opted and cowed Constitutional Convention. Fortunately, I was not arrested, perhaps because I interviewed in great detail Marcos’ allies inside the Convention. Besides, who would bother reading a 14-part series in a business paper. The late Raul and Leticia Locsin who founded the newspaper generously gave me months to do the report.

Third, as a long-time foreign correspondent for Asia’s oldest English language newspaper South China Morning Post in Hong Kong, I’ve had to cover arrests, trials and convictions of accused drug traffickers from Hong Kong or China or Filipinos who had fled to Hong Kong.

And fourth, part of my post-Marcos reporting necessitated writing about five Philippine presidents including the incumbent Rodrigo Duterte.

Knowledge obtained from these four serendipitous events triggered alarm bells in my mind about what President Duterte is really up to. After examining for months what he and his closest aides have been doing and saying, I am forced to conclude the following:

His “war on drugs” is based on a gross and deliberate misinterpretation of the Dangerous Drugs Board’s “2015 Nationwide Survey on the Nature and Extent of Drug Abuse in the Philippines”.

On July 1, 2016, the first full day of Duterte’s presidency, Philippine National Police Director-General Ronaldo de la Rosa issued “Command Circular No. 16-2016, launching Duterte’s anti-illegal drug campaign called Oplan Double Barrel. [Note: My thanks to Oscar Franklin Tan for pointing out this circular to me.]

Section 3 of the Circular quoted statistics from two sources: the “2015 National Household Survey” of the Dangerous Drugs Board or DDB, the policy and strategy-making agency in the fight against illegal drugs; and the arrest data from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency or PDEA, which conducts buy-busts and raids.

The Circular said that according to the DDB 2015 survey, “there were around 1.8 million active drug users in the country”. “Active” means they had used drugs in the 12 months before the survey was taken. Of this 1.8 million, roughly a third or 38.36% were unemployed.

Then it noted that while much had already been done, “apparently, in the quest to go after high level drug traffickers, the government seems to have overlooked the worsening drug problem at the grassroots level.”

In other words, Oplan Double Barrel was directed mainly at addressing the “worsening drug problem” in poor communities. It was not meant to go after high level drug traffickers.

However, if you look at the figures of the DDB 2015 Survey, they give a totally different conclusion. For instance, the police circular said drugs – not just shabu but all drugs – have “victimized mostly the underprivileged and impoverished sector of the society.”

On the contrary, the DDB 2015 survey surprisingly found that among the active drug users, there were more employed than unemployed.

The same DDB survey also found more people with high school, college or doctorate degrees abusing drugs compared to those with only elementary or vocational schooling.

Now you might say, maybe most of them were using marijuana. What about shabu? Interestingly, on that point, the police circular does not quote the DDB survey. It quotes data of the number of arrests made by PDEA. Based on PDEA’s arrest data, it concludes that shabu “reportedly tops the list of most abused illegal drugs, followed by marijuana.”

Why didn’t Director General Bato’s circular use DDB’s 2015 Survey data for this? Because the DDB survey actually showed marijuana topping the list of most abused illegal drugs. Shabu was only second.

In fact, the DDB survey stated that of the estimated 1.8 million active drug users, 1.27 million were smoking marijuana and only 859,150 were taking shabu.

I have other findings of deliberate data manipulation which I promise to post on my website, raissarobles.com: inside Philippine politics and beyond. [Note: I reiterate my promise after I finish my work deadlines.]

In any case, 24 days after this police circular was issued, President Duterte delivered his first State of the Nation Address where he inflated the drug figures even more.

He said that in 2013, PDEA had stated there were 3 million drug addicts. He added, “Give it a liberal addition. Maybe, gawin mo na [700,000]. So three million seven hundred thousand [3.7 million]. The number is quite staggering and scary.”

In other words, President Duterte extrapolated out of thin air the number of 3.7 million active drug users as of 2013. .

Now, I’ve had occasion to interview no less than the former PDEA chief retired General Dionisio Santiago – whom Duterte has quoted on several occasions. PDEA is not the agency in charge of doing surveys so they would not know the number of drug addicts. They do arrests, which by the way they do well because they have very few fatalities. It is the DDB that commissions surveys on the number of drug users.

And the DDB said that in 2013, there were 1.3 million drug users, not 3 million which was what Duterte said in his SONA.

But the President chose to cite the number of PDEA arrests, which centered on shabu trafficking, not marijuana trafficking.

Duterte’s further pronouncements that the drug problem had turned “pandemic” and was causing a “national security crisis” – all these led me to suspect that his so-called “war on drugs” was intended to lay the predicate for more draconian measures – very possibly the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and/or the declaration of Martial Law which he, his justice secretary and his presidential legal counsel have repeatedly warned about.

No other president after Marcos ever warned about needing to declare Martial Law.

But even without his war on drugs, Duterte can substitute his battles on four simultaneous fronts – the communist rebels, the ISIS, the Maute Group and the Abu Sayyaf – to justify suspension of the writ or imposition of Martial Law. To this day, Duterte has yet to lift the state of national emergency following one bombing in Davao City.

No Philippine president after Marcos ever declared a state of national emergency after one bombing.

Parallel to all these, President Duterte has also been pushing for drastic changes in the 1987 Constitution as “the” solution to the country’s nagging problems of poverty and peace and order.

And this is where I suspect Duterte is closely copying what Marcos did, but with much improvisation.

Duterte’s ultimate aim is to set up a revolutionary government where he can do anything he wants to.

Duterte also said he would have to padlock Congress and the judiciary because “You have to close everything. It is anti-democratic, but how do you change society? Nothing seems to work in this country.”

He would do all these, he said, so he could establish a federal-parliamentary type of government that would devolve powers to the regions.

He told the reporters and editors of the Inquirer that a revolutionary government was the only way “to fast-track federalism”, “stop criminality” and “fix this government”. He frankly told them, “I won’t do it if you want to place me there with the solemn pledge to stick to the rules.”

“If you don’t want that, OK. Look for another son of a b*tch,” he also said.

Now. How can Duterte set up a so-called “revolutionary government”?

His various interviews indicated that he had closely studied how Marcos did it in 1972 and how Corazon Aquino did it in 1986.

Marcos had to call for a Constitutional Convention to draft a new charter, then arrest all possible critics while imposing Martial Law. Duterte’s first step was to issue Executive Order No 10, “Creating a Consultative Committee to review the 1987 Constitution” and recommend changes. I’m pretty sure a lawmaker can easily be found to file these recommendations as his own proposed amendments to the 1987 charter.

Bongbong Marcos’ father had resorted to “Citizens Assemblies” to ratify the charter which legalized his dictatorship. Even as I speak, the Duterte government is frantically organizing in all barangays a group called “Kilusang Pagbabago” or Movement for Change. It will, among others, push for a federal type of government. Doesn’t the name remind you of Marcos’ Kilusan ng Bagong Lipunan or Movement for a New Society?

I believe Kilusang Pagbabago will be used to get Duterte’s proposed Constitution approved in a plebiscite that will be added as a rider to the barangay elections, once these are held.

Now, this is where it gets to be very interesting.

Our history shows that on the two occasions that we switched from one form of government to another in an extra-constitutional manner, there was a transition period provided for. It was this transition period that Marcos exploited to entrench himself in power, so that the country never actually transitioned from the presidential to the parliamentary.

The Marcos Constitution provided Marcos with awesome powers through its “Transitory Provisions”. His transitory powers included making laws by issuing decrees even while the National Assembly was in session.

One of the things Marcos did in order to get members of the pre-Martial Law bicameral Congress and the delegates of the 1971 Constitutional Convention to back his planned switch to a one-chamber National Assembly was to promise them that they would all be members of that Parliament.

They fell for it.

Quite a number of them campaigned for the ratification of the Marcos Constitution.

Instead of a plebiscite, Marcos hastily convened Citizens Assemblies for this purpose. I call it the Marcos Constitution because insertions were made by the presidential palace and fed to the Constitutional Convention delegates to sponsor.

Marcos fooled them all. He never convened the National Assembly. Instead, he wrote a decree creating the “Interim Batasang Pambansa” or IBP and convening this in 1978. It wasn’t the same banana as the National Assembly stipulated in the 1973 Constitution so Marcos did not have to fulfill his promise to accommodate all the elected politicians there.

A somewhat similar betrayal happened during the transition period in 1986 after President Corazon Aquino replaced Marcos. Aquino’s tandem with opposition leader Salvador Laurel only became possible after she promised the post of Prime Minister to Laurel.

Laurel got to enjoy the post only for a month because on March 25, 1986, Mrs. Aquino issued Proclamation No. 3 putting in place a “Provisional Constitution”, also called the Freedom Constitution, which abolished the post of Prime Minister. From being in charge of the day-to-day running of government, Laurel became the Vice-President, a mere spare tire.

We can see from these two examples from our history that a transition period gives the person at the very top such awesome powers that could be used to establish authoritarian rule or a democracy.

In Duterte’s case, I believe he is more inclined toward authoritarianism because he doesn’t have a federalist bone in his body. He has demonstrated a top-down, I’m the boss kind of leadership.

Comments

Let is frustrate the dictatorial ambitions of Duterte by being always vigilant and jealous about our rights and liberties. We have to be ready to go the streets and the hills, if need be, to stop Duterte’s maniacal designs against our people.

methink, congressmen dont need anymore regalo, what they need is good dose of common sense. else they’ll regalo the people with death penalty.

anyhow, were the teddy bears made from china?

those nasalanta ng lindol need all the help they can get and did they get something from imeldefect? pls send them bigas at sardinas, not red teddy bears kasing red ng damit ni imee on the cover of a mag. pls dont send them channel shoes size 7 (ka-size ni imelda). the people there can do with tsinelas and roofs over their heads, the cost nearly equivalent to channel shoes.

anyhow again, methink imeldefect got to thank them congressmen for makoy’s burial in libingan and maybe, they wont rise ire in the future when makoy’s burial will again comes to fore.

and if them congressmen dont know what to do with them red teddy bears, coz they already had so many valentines gifts given by those currying for favors, I suggest they ask for refund, the money given to those most in need.

for bc’s info, raissa and good journalism are good fit and complimentary.

like any award winning journalist, raissa attracts fair share of cranks and charlatans! fans and admirers as well. raissa’s articles and well researched and well thought of, and more trustworthy than others.

envious si bc dahil much admired si raissa. muckraker to him, but hard hitting investigative journalist to many many others. raissa is often asked to attend forums and address meetings, conscientious voice of the voiceless.

bc is trying to put raissa down, and failing. raissa is a gem among gems. her pen is mightier than bc’s.

since the beginning, na-envisaged ni raissa as well as 35million others what digong is really like.

post election, digong is still not presidentiable. despite promises that he would behave, leading kahoytano to say na after inauguration, digong is going to reign in swearing and will undergo metamorphosis.

Raissa concludes, suspects & believes on the negatives of duterte administration are all speculations based on her being a die-hard yellowtards and has never posted an article that mentioned any “positives” on digong in contrast to the latest duterte’s approval and trust rating of 83% by pulse asia conducted in January of this year,

1. I have read Raissa’s latest book.
2. I have read Tibo’s book – it is unparalleled on the topic of M & ML
3. I have read Susan Quimpo’s book and talked to her extensively about it.
4. I will buy JC Mijares-Gurango’s book today; thanks for the tip.
5. Now … for you … an exercise in intellectual honesty … reflect upon the 4 books above. The topics … the style and quality of writing. Now ask yourself … (a) how do the styles and quality compare to Raissa’s latest article?
(b) what do the 4 books above have to do with R.D.? Seriously.

I totally disagreed with the Marcos burial at Libingan. We all witnessed how sneaky the family could be … and (perhaps) how fickle the SC could be.

The issue will continue to fade in the press … save for the odd pop up protest. It’s a done deal. Not to move on is a waste of time and money. Politics, of any color, … is never squeaky clean and has a penchant to disappoint …at least half of the citizenry.

You show your misunderstanding of our youth by overestimating their ‘current’ fervor re: opposition to the Libingan scam. Good for them in getting out and exercising their democratic voice. But youth have an uncanny compass to know when to move on. More are concerned, and rightly so, about the Productive Health Act and the religious cronyism that stymies it.

They are the future … but fear mongering each step our current president takes … portraying him as the darker poison that Marcos perpetrated … may not be the best way to mentor them, politically.

Fair enough, but don’t put all your eggs in one basket and easy does it on the quantum leaps. While you’re at it, mentor and support the youth on contemporary issues that affect them … eg. Productive Health Act. Or will it be more fear mongering there!?!

Well said, Raissa. Ultimately, the “drug war” is a false premise twice over. 1) No nation on earth has ever been able to claim victory in such an ersatz war; 2) Compared to our Asian neighbors–and much of the rest of the world–we don’t really have that much of a drug problem anyway. Point 1) is well established & you have done an excellent job of opening discussion on point 2).

You will notice that, unlike most other public pronouncements on the subject, I flatly deny the nation’s “drug problem” as any kind of “crisis” requiring heroic intervention–especially of the EJK sort. That we have been propagandized to believe otherwise speaks volumes about the efficacy of paid social media trolling, while at the same time using the irresistible sensationalism of blood-in-the-streets to manipulate mainstream media. I refuse to play the game of prefacing my remarks with any sort of disclaimer about “how bad” our drug problem is, or about how ‘Though action is called for, killing is not the way.”

In this country, we have an ordinary drug problem best dealt with at its social, economic & public health roots. Shabu isn’t *even* a drug of addiction…it shares the same active ingredient as some diet pills and–most notably–ADHD meds like Adderall. Drugs that (well-to-do) people take because they feel they need their effects to deal with the problems of modern life. Eating ice cream & smoking cigarettes are qualitatively different. One is an addiction while the other is more of an indulgence. Just look at the “withdrawals” from shabu: former users want to eat & sleep! This is much different from withdrawal from drugs of addiction.

But the main point–the threat of dictatorship–there are two reprehensible aspects: 1) The police have been criminalized. By dispersing killer cops to provinces all over the country, Du30–like Marcos before him–is turning the national police into a nationwide private army. 2) Du30 is killing people (albeit with his mouth–leaving no paper trail) in aid of maintaining his popular image. This is cynical AND most foul! 3) Psychologically, Du30–a man in his 70s, of declining sexual prowess–is asserting his masculine power by holding the life & death of others in his hands. (And foul mouth.)

The Marcos-Du30 heterodyne makes sense in many ways–even as it’s hard to imagine either actually trusting the other.

Thank you, Raissa. You use your unique position to “speak truth to power” very effectively.

digong is also declining in mental acuity, things that people around him have taken advantage of. and digong is quite happy to comply, playing the fool. biro mo, they whisper ideas to him, suggested ideas to him and then, made him believe those ideas originated from him.

Du30 is indeed 70+ and has some experience and thus convictions of what works and what doesn’t. More relevant than his sexual obsessions I guess. He has a picture of what made him (partly) successful for the citizens of Davao and he knows a few people whose advice he can follow.

He thinks he needs the same level of control, but the current national politics (official and behind the curtains) do not give him that possibility, so he is convinced he has to change things, guarantee more absolute power, to be “successful” again for the citizens of this country.

not only is digong addicted to fentanyl he is also addicted to change, addicted to success as well. change all pati constitution, change democratic govt to federal. dapat, he should change the filipino race too, and make them – chinese!

ay, digong must have success too and ended up failing. his peace talks ended up being piss talks. gullible kasi itong si digong. npa can never change, killing is their main commodity. war on drugs ended up being war on poor people and killing them, while letting drug culture flourish.

p.s. digong should change his repertoire and make it better. he was 3hrs late in coming to the auditorium in surigao city in order to address those nasalanta ng lindol. pahina ang matandang ito. late na nga kulang pa ang relief packages na pinamigay.

Psychologically addictive? Well, yes…in the same sense as porn, gambling or, for that matter, ice cream. With psychological addiction, who draws the line & where?

There are places in the world that have serious problems with metabolically addictive drugs like opiates, opioids, nicotine & alcohol…where in some cases withdrawal can be fatal. Amphetamines do not belong to that class of drugs. That people *are* genuinely distressed by quitting shabu highlights a little-known point about the differences between metabolic and psychological addictions.

In the metabolic case, treatment begins with treatment of the body. To treat psychological addiction one must begin with the person’s *life*–in the case of local shabu use, that is usually either a need to work extreme hours to support a family (taxi drivers on 24hr shifts, for instance, or people who must take multiple jobs to survive) or else a sense of futility, lack of future prospects & general uselessness. Shabu instills a (false) sense of purpose in life.

Psychological addiction does not require massive physical treatment (beyond the physical problems stemming from side-effects of the drug itself, i.e. not eating, not sleeping, calcium depletion &c…). Institutional rehab is mostly a “monetization” of a socioeconomic problem that most benefits those who run “rehabilitation centers.”

Without doubt, any putative “war on drugs” must necessarily be mostly smoke & mirrors. The real purpose of EJKs is state terrorism & the consolidation of the drug trade under those favored by the administration. (Yes, drugs are now easily available from newly “approved” sources.)

Meanwhile, on top of the unconscionable deaths, the real roots of the problem are easily ignored.

sabi ni bc shabu is highly addictive, so is fentanyl. digong takes fentanyl long term and is addicted to drug too, mayhap that explains why digong’s mind is full of holes, kahit ano-ano ang pinagsasabi. leading his staff to say things like, dont mind digong, he is crazy! well, they did not exactly say crazy, but close enough.

“In fact, the DDB survey stated that of the estimated 1.8 million active drug users, 1.27 million were smoking marijuana and only 859,150 were taking shabu.”

Over a million surrendered under Tokhang, +35,000 arrested, +2500 killed in police actions, +3500 EJK… (still on going and rising)

…but… but… there are only 859,150 shabu addicts… LoL. If thats the case, the war on drug should already been over… So, either there are more than 3M shabu addicts or the drug war is almost complete/successful.

You love to use data… the data show otherwise… the drug problem is big …. really BIG… is it 3.7M? Dont think so… but its definitely bigger than 1.7M… way… way…. way bigger.

“In Duterte’s case, I believe he is more inclined toward authoritarianism because he doesn’t have a federalist bone in his body. His has demonstrated a top-down, I’m the boss kind of leadership”

I knew if I waited long enough, you’d finally convince me … to see things your way. Wow! You must have done some deep DEEP digging to come up with those 2 gems of evidence that PROVE, unequivocally, that Duterte is on the verge of imposing a draconian (a la Marcos) Martial Law.

Gem # 1 : “He doesn’t have a federalist bone in his body.”
Gem # 2 : “A top down (“I’m the boss.”) kind of leadership.”

If that doesn’t prove “in the closet Dictator”, I don’t know what does. You nailed it!

I doubt you Ma’m Raissa is hallucinating. A great piece is this work again. . .

Duterte’s idea of setting up a revolutionary ‘was’ before he was elected President. Marcos did not do this type of government.

Pres. Cory did it.

But Marcos’ type was, with many names, a like ‘Constitutional-dictatorship’ type after many months and years of THINKING. He was brilliant.

Duterte is 70+ years old. Does he have those years and months to THINK of a revolutionary government?

He also wants ‘reforms’ under a revolutionary government. What reforms, for example(s)? Or deforms maybe?

It cannot be enough to ‘padlock’ Congress and the judiciary. What will he use to replace these bodies? A Council of Elders? Will such Council work better?

But again, Duterte wants a federal-parliamentary type of government. He changed his type into this type after being elected. What did he find out after his election?

– that a federal-type is better than a revolutionary type?

Again, Duterte will have to double THINK than Marcos on this. Question is: Can he do it . . . to devolve powers to the regions – for one change?

If Duterte thinks to ‘fast-track’ federalism from a revolutionary government in order (for one or two) purposes: ‘to stop criminality’ and ‘fix this government’ – why in heaven’s name KILL the whole living COW for a mere 2 KILOS of meat? What ‘rules’ is Duterte asking to stick on?

Now, Duterte wants federalism type for the present as Congress will propose soon. it is not anymore his so-called “revolutionary government.” You are right saying ‘Now, How can Duterte set up a so-called “revolutionary government”? ”

– with the caliber of his allies? His years? His mental and physical health? Etc.?

Will Duterte ‘remember’ “Transitory Powers”? Will he be able to KEEP TRACK many ‘changes’ as the multiple plan(s) keeps changing every days, weeks and months?

Another question: Can Duterte, like Marcos, fool the people? All of them? Some of them? Kaya gawin nya dito?

I ask all these with this article prodding me because to establish authoritarian rule demands a lot and too much PLANS and THINKING from one good brilliant type of a person with political power. Awesome powers at that!

A ‘boss kind of leadership’ is a self-false ego vs 100+million different egos.

Is Duterte and his allies instead hallucinating? Yes, at 75% going upwards.

to me, this means digong is easily suggestible, parang na-hypnotize siya and awed by the ghostling of marcos. weak minded kasi itong si digong: changing the constitution so his cronies can plunder the nation. they had it so good under marcos, and can have it again under digong.

for as long as digong got his usual dose of fentanyl, all is well with the world.

How dare you compare Pres Duterte with Pres Marcos! Pres Marcos was an extremely brilliant person…never cussed, never cursed the pope, bishops and presidents, ambassadors and leaders. He had superior plans for the counyry. How can you even say they sounded the same. Pres Marcos had breeding more than any of us and specially you with your sanctimonious article and stance

“We reiterate what we have already stated in Republic vs Sandiganbayan, and subsequently in Marcos vs Republic, that ‘whenever ang public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary…. said property shall be presumed prima facie to be unlawfully acquired,” the SC said.

must be sad day for the marcoses. the jewels na maging family heirlooms sana ay naging non event pa. sayang, the marcoses ladies and their children’s children would have less to show for the plunders of the father. dyos na mahabangin, they would have to work and buy their own jewels from the sweat of thier brows.

raissa is right to compare makoy and digong, two of a kind sina makoy at digong, one cannot be without the other. methink, digong was the only president that acknowledged the brilliance (pwe!) that is marcos and allow makoy to be buried sa libingan ng mga bayani.

the lest marylyn joven can do is be nice to digong. else, magbago ang isip ni digong at ipahukay uli si makoy. back to ilocandia, ilibing uli duon.

Right. So that one day you’ll waltz through Quiapo as if it’s the halls and rooms of your home. I may have to ask what breeding do your ilk have in terrorizing people for even speaking out their minds because these critics sees what’s wrong with the paradise your lords and masters are trying to carve out with bloody knives.

there’s nothing wrong under the current political system. federal or presidential is not a remedy for the country’s failure, it is the wrong choice of leader running the country on behest of uninformed electorates

You are not hallucinating Raissa, With the populist stand of DU30 administration, he is bent to create a dictatorial form of government by way of creating an mentality of “wala lang” over EJK incidents. His pledge to serve the country by way of our present constitution is a blatant display of power giving an example that anyone can be unconstitutional for a change.Let us all then be vigilant. Not to be boxed by any identifying colors but by being a true lover of democracy.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

If A New Comment Is Posted:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a SocialistThen they came fof the Trade Unionists, and I did not out speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.Then they came for me— And there was no one left to speak for me. —Martin Niemöller (1892-1984)

sam on No to charter change advocates to celebrate Edsa People Power as day of protest: “Alvarez wants abolition of UN, creation of ‘United Nations of Asia’ http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/644263/alvarez-wants-abolition-of-un-creation-of-united-nations-of-asia/story/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sobra ang…” Feb 22, 10:05