Wednesday, March 30, 2022

A treatise on politics

 “AM I Machiavellian? Well, I’ve studied him quite thoroughly, and I know very many Machiavellians in my life.”

The hornets stirred by this declaration of presidential runner Ferdinand Marcos Jr. have not gone back to their nests yet so here’s one aged wasp joining the stinging frenzy.  
Finding nothing new to contribute to the discussions – ageing has put the processes of the intellect to a crawl – I burrowed deep into my Zona archives and found this piece dated Oct. 30, 2007, A primer to Panlilio. Yup, choice cuts from Old Niccolo applied to the then Reverend Governor of Pampanga. Here it is:

“A MAN who wishes to make a profession of goodness in everything must necessary come to grief among so many who are not good.”
That aphorism could have been specifically crafted for Gov. Eddie T. Panlilio in the wake of his honest act relative to the P500,000 donation he received in – not from – the Palace, and the seismic aftershocks it caused.
Easily, the quotation by its inspiring moral tone could have come only from a tome on values, if not the Holy Book itself.
Wrong. It is vintage 1500. From the little book that launched – and sank – a thousand political careers: Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince.
If he hasn’t, Panlilio should read – and internalize – the book, it being the definitive handbook of politics, power, and statesmanship.
The Prince – history tells us – nurtured through generations a virtual Who’s Who in the world political stage: Cardinal Richelieu, the de facto dictator of France at the time of Louis XIII; Christina, the queen of Sweden circa 1632-1654; Frederick the Great of Prussia; Otto von Bismarck, the Iron Chancellor of the German Empire; Georges Clemenceau, French statesman and premier.
Notables of the 20th century who went to school in Machiavelli included Adolf Hitler, der fuehrer of the Third German Reich; Benito Mussolini, il duce of Fascist Italy; Vladimir I. Lenin, father of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and his heir Josef Stalin; and the Philippines’ Ferdinand E. Marcos, known to have made the book – not Imelda – as his bedside companion.
A virtual historical rogues’ gallery, that list by itself seems proof beyond doubt that indeed The Prince is the “blueprint for dictators” and its author the Devil Incarnate himself. Old Nick, the slang for the devil, is a take from Machiavelli’s given name. And Machiavellian entered the lexicon to mean crafty, shrewd, deceitful, immoral. This is an offshoot of the most famous quotation obtaining in the book: “The end justifies the means.”
Comes the question now: How does one steeped in Christian values – like Panlilio the priest-and-governor – come to terms with an opus placed in the Index of Prohibited Books in the Vatican in 1559 and, with the confirmation of the Council of Trent, decreed to be burned by the Inquisition?
Ain’t the priest and any Catholic for that matter sinning mortally by simply reading an “Indexed” book? (A confession: I first read The Prince in my Suprema (third year high school) class at the Mother of Good Counsel Seminary. The copy smuggled in by my “free-thinking” professor in, of all subjects, trigonometry.)
Far from being the devil’s handiwork, The Prince – particularly its last chapter, Exhortation to Liberate Italy from the Barbarians – made a number of invocations to the Almighty for national redemption and admonition for the leader to do his share in the effort: “God will not do everything, in order to deprive us of free will and the portion of the glory that falls to our lot.”
That’s just like the old, old very Christian saying “God helps those who help themselves.”
Though written against the backdrop of a long gone era, of an Italy fragmented into five major seats of power, The Prince has found currency through the ages as well as relevance and validity no matter the political setting, be it monarchical or republican, autocratic or democratic. Even in such a milieu as provincial politics and governance. Thus, its importance to Panlilio.
“The first impression that one gets of a ruler and of his brains is from seeing the men (and more especially the women, if I may add) that he has about him. One can always form an unfavorable opinion of him, because the first mistake that he makes is in making this choice.”
Atty. Vivian Dabu as (un)confirmed provincial administrator and Atty. Ma. Elissa Velez as (un)confirmed provincial legal counsel, choices Panlilio stubbornly pushed – no matter the media protest rally, the lamentations of Lolita Hizon and the sangguniang panlalawigan’s rejection – raised all speculations not so much about Panlilio’s brains as about his balls, and who’s holding, ay, grasping them.
Speaking of Hizon and other campaign supporters of the governor who reportedly had a “fall out” with him on some issues, here’s Machiavelli’s advice to Panlilio: “It is the nature of men (of women too, again we add) to be as much bound by the benefits they confer as by those they receive.”
Tit for tat or political payback, plain and simple.
Okay, okay, so the mayors are all ganging up on Panlilio on the issues of quarry and the P500,000 money. The governor, ensconced in his civil society, can find solace in Machiavelli: “A prince need trouble little about conspiracies when the people are well disposed, but when they are hostile and hold him in hatred, then he must fear everything and everybody.”
Again, seemingly written by Machiavelli with Panlilio in mind: “One who becomes prince by favor of the populace must maintain its friendship, which he will find easy, the people asking nothing but not to be oppressed.”
Arguably enjoying the support of the people, Panlilio must be wary though of those previously written about in this column as his myrmidons who do nothing but sing hosannas to him. Machiavelli cautions: “There is no other way of guarding one’s self against flattery than by letting men understand that they will not offend you by speaking the truth; but when everyone can tell you the truth, you lose their respect.”
A primer on governance, The Prince is required reading not only for presidents but for every student of politics and power. Moreso for a priest who traded his parish church for the provincial Capitol.
PAST TO PRESENT. Still stripped of his priestly functions even after stepping down from the Capitol and two failed comeback tries, Ed Panlilio is far from having shunned politics. He is currently among the spearheads of the Leni-Kiko campaign in Pampanga.

 



 

Friday, March 25, 2022

The ex factor

THIS IS not about that unknown, thus X, element that makes one beauty stand out among a bevy of beauties, as in those Miss Whatever pageants or in modelling.

It’s all about the ex – as in erstwhile, former, once, onetime, past – elective officials seeking to regain lost political glory. Or how their past factors in their present quests. To the point: Does being an ex-mayor or ex-governor or ex-congressman or ex-whatever positively matter in elections?

The thought struck me seeing so many exes in Pampanga – maybe, even elsewhere -- running anew in the May 9 polls, even for the mayoralty alone.

In the 1st District, there’s Malou Paras-Lacson in Magalang, and Boking Morales in Mabalacat City.   

In the 2nd District, Carling de La Cruz in Porac, Art Salalila in Sta. Rita, Eddie Guerrero in Floridablanca, and once ALE Partylist Rep. Lina Cabrera in Sasmuan.

In the 3rd District, Chito Espino in Arayat, and Oscar Rodriguez in the City of San Fernando.

In the 4th District, Annette Flores-Balgan in Macabebe, Leonora Wong in San Simon, and Johnny Sambo in Sto. Tomas.

While sharing commonality in being exes, peculiarity obtains in their individual situations. 

Two are in for return bouts with their nemeses in the 2019 elections – Paras-Lacson versus incumbent Romy Pecson who beat her by 27 votes; Sambo against incumbent Gloria “Ninang” Ronquillo.

Two were three-term mayors now incumbent vice mayors: Wong wanting to dislodge the once-suspended Abundio “JP” Punsalan; Flores-Balgan in sibling rivalry with elder brother Leonardo “Bobong” Flores.

Four are coming from loses in previous attempts: Guerrero who also lost in the vice mayoralty race right after his third term and in 2019 against incumbent Darwin Manalansan; Espino against now term-ending Bon Alejandrino; and Salalila against brother Dagi, the incumbent; Cabrera against incumbent Nardo Velasco. 

From a one-term hiatus, three termer De la Cruz now challenges reelectionist Jing Capil. Unable to recall a similar situation in past elections, a victory for the former will be a precedent of sorts here.  

Rodriguez is on a different level altogether: congressional winner in his first electoral foray in 1987, losing to Didi Domingo in 1992, winning over her in 1995, reelected in 1998 and 2001, winning the San Fernando mayoralty in 2004, 2007, and 2010, returning to Congress in 2013, losing his seat to Dong Gonzales in 2016, thought to have retired thereafter, beat the deadline for COC filing last year.     

Morales is sui generis in politics: vice mayor in 1988, losing in his first try for the mayoralty in 1992, winning in 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2016 but unseated by the Comelec in 2017 for violation of the three-term limit – all of 16 years after the fact.   

The once-forever mayor ran for vice mayor in 2019 but lost – miserably – to his nephew Geld Aquino.

Now we go ex-factoring.

Nung anyang macalucluc ya milucas ya salol, ngeni pang yang managalan? (He lost when he was incumbent, how can he possibly win now that he is the challenger? – no direct translation of a rather picturesque Capampangan idiomatic expression there).

Apparently unapplicable to immediate return bouts, to wit:

Candaba Mayor Rene Maglanque lost to neophyte Danilo Baylon in 2016, but beat him in 2019.   

Incumbent Mayor Pecson lost to Paras-Lacson in 2016 and beat her in 2019. She is out to return the favor this May. An interesting fight if only for the degla. In Sambo versus Ronquillo too.

While a single loss proximate to end-term seems survivable, multiple ones are veritably insurmountable – Espino, Salalila, Cabrera – most especially those who went below their incumbent status and still lost, thus: Vice mayor namu mesambut cayu, qng panga-mayor nanu pang pag-asa yu? (You lost for vice mayor, what hope have you to win for mayor?) – Morales, Guerrero. Here is where the ex is hexed.

A case in reverse is that of Flores-Balgan and Wong – undefeated in three successive mayoralty runs, sitting vice mayors now. There is hardly any reference from their constituencies of their being ex. The mayoralty viewed as mere resumption of duty after the breather that is the vice mayoralty. This we have to see.  

Ex-three termers who lost in even but a single comeback bid who run anew face overwhelming odds, not the least the ridicule of their constituents: Bisa ca pa? E ca pa sinawa? Nanung e mu alacuan quen? (You still want (the position)? Aren’t you sated yet? What can’t you leave there? – direct translations now). Yo, Guerrero! Yo, Espino! Yo, Morales!     

How about Rodriguez?

The ex factor stacks up in Mang Oca’s favor – street parliamentarian, human rights lawyer, a pillar in legislation, brilliant prosecutor in the Estrada impeachment trial, father of San Fernando cityhood, World City Mayor Awardee, etcetera. Think gravitas and not one of his rivals even comes close, dare I say. And no apologies there. How all this stands against the factor of age, is all up to the electorate.    

Given the magnificence of his exes, were Mang Oca now imbued with the X factor – that “variable in a given situation that could have the most significant impact on the outcome…”

No fearless forecasts here, only random ruminations of an armchair theorist. Chillax.      

 (Punto! March 23, 2022) 

 

Marcos Jr. at 60%, seriously?

"OBVIOUSLY HE has captured the imagination of a good percentage of our voters. Also, he has more than adequate resources to sustain his presence in social media, his caravans, his campaign. Plus, his name of course and the association with his father has definitely benefited him from that."

So spoke Pulse Asia executive director Ana Tabunda of the February 18-23 survey her company conducted showing former senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. keeping his lead over all other presidential aspirants.

Marcos Jr. polled 60% to VP Leni Robredo’s 15%, Manila Mayor Isko Moreno’s 10%, Sen. Manny Pacquiao’s 8%, and Sen. Ping Lacson’s 2%. The rest of the presidential timbers obviously axed unceremoniously from the survey’s interview schedule.

And Pulse Asia has never been wrong in predicting the next president, so stressed Tabunda in ANC Headstart.

Gloating over the results, Marcos Jr. spox Vic Rodriguez said the survey “has again debunked the fake narrative being forced by some small segment of our society on the current sentiments” of Filipinos on the May 9 elections.

Rubbing it in: “While some of them may claim that they are winning in ‘Twitter’ and ‘Google’ searches, frontrunner Bongbong Marcos is winning the battle with the Filipino people.” So was he quoted in media.  

Quick and querulous are the dismissals of the survey results as the “false pulse” of the electorate, Pacquiao and Lacson unbothered a bit.

The Kakampink movement of Robredo went the full nine yards questioning the accuracy of the methodology, disparaging the implausibility of the results.

Argument 1: Marcos polled 60% of 2,400 adult respondents – that is a total of 1,440 individuals – and it’s already reflective of the preference of the national electorate.  Robredo has been gathering mammoth audiences by the scores of thousands in rallies in Naga, Quezon City, Cebu, Cagayan de Oro, Iloilo, Cavite, Bulacan and Bacolor, even in the so-called Solid North province of Isabela and that’s 15%?

Argument 2: Marcos has 60% of the vote when he could not even get decent numbers – hakot and takot notwithstanding – to rallies that his minions had to cancel. Resibo: Antique, Mindoro, Tarlac, Paranaque.

Argument 3: Marcos has 60% preference and still his handlers have to multiply a thousandfold the measly 18,000 attendees and spectators to his caravan-rally in Las Piñas to an incredible 500,000?  

Resibo from CNN: “Las Piñas City Police Chief Col. Jaime Santos on Monday confirmed that the police estimated around 5,000 people were inside The Tent, Global South in the city, where Marcos and other candidates of UniTeam held a rally. He also confirmed that around 3,000 people gathered outside the venue, while over 10,000 participated in the caravan.”

Aye, there is more, much more accuracy in surveying lands than people here.

And once more the broken record that I am when it comes to opinion polling plays anew: Believe in published surveys at your own peril.
Case 1: In 2007, then-Rep. Rey Aquino was so gung-ho at taking back the San Fernando mayoralty from incumbent Oscar Rodriguez – “Pamacsi que y Oca” – with a 60 to 40 edge in surveys. Oca won, as he did in all but two – 1992 and 2016 – electoral contests he joined: 1987, 1995, 1998, 2001 congressional races, and the 2004 mayorship, even as he always lost in all published surveys on those elections.
Case 2: Crisostomo Garbo was never the top choice in any survey but won all elections he entered – as Mabalacat councilor twice, first district board member three times, vice mayor once, and mayor now twice. Currently, Garbo is polled as winning in one survey while another showed him losing to political newbie broadcaster Deng Pangilinan.
So, again, I write: Surveys are meant to serve as campaign guideposts. Their efficacy to gain some bandwagon effect has long been lost because of surfeit and the incredibility of results.
Which makes this whole affair of press releasing survey results, whether factual or false, a double-edged sword. Propaganda – as these survey releases are nothing but – can always backfire. With the outcome diametric to the intended results. Propa-pangit. The spinmeisters of my generation coined that word for it.      

Triumphant Truman displays erroneous Chicago Daily Tribune banner headline on the result of the 1948 US presidential polls. Getty Images/grabbed from web

The perils of opinion polls – along with the overconfidence they bring to their purported winners – are best exemplified in the (in)famous “Dewey defeats Truman” US prudential elections of 1948.

New York Governor Thomas Dewey was by most indications in the polls was on the way to an easy victory over incumbent President Harry Truman who was into his first election for president, having succeeded Franklin D. Roosevelt who died in office in 1945.

Truman’s Democratic Party had splintered into three factions and pre-election polls signaled Dewey was so comfortably ahead that one of the three national pollsters at that time, Elmo Roper, declared he would release no further survey results unless a political miracle intervened.

So confident of winning that Dewey was said to have told supporters: “… always remember, when you’re leading, don’t talk.” 

On the other hand, Truman “had just one strategy—attack, attack, attack, carry the fight to the enemy’s camp,” so we read in his Pulitzer Prize-winning biography by David McCullough. 

The outcome of the elections – and with it “the epic failure of the pollsters, pundits, and the press” – is memorialized in that picture of Truman in triumph holding aloft the Chicago Daily Tribune with the erroneous banner headline “Dewey defeats Truman.” 

No, I am neither parallelizing past and present political events nor insinuating anything.

 

 


 

Vanity unfair


AESOP made a fable of it: “The fly sat upon the axle-tree of the chariot wheel, and said, ‘What a cloud of dust do I raise.’”

The taga-ilog crafted a proverb out of it: “Langaw na dumapo sa likod ng kalabaw, pakiwari’y malaki pa sa tinuntungan.”
The taga-pampang, never to be outdone by their neighbors, witticised it thus: “Soga ing penako na, katayid damulag ya.”
“So there are some vain persons, that, whatsoever goeth alone or moveth upon greater means, if they have never so little hand in it, they think it is they that carry it.” So wrote the great English essayist Francis Bacon on the subject.
Yeah, it’s vainglory we are talking about here, dummy.
As in basking in reflected glory, like the moon boasting of its light that is no more than that reflected upon it by the sun.
So common in sons of not necessarily illustrious, but even merely popular, fathers. Some even get to be governors totally clueless in the art of governance. (Update: Others even ambitioning to the presidency on the grounds of their forebear’s infamy. Yea, like you-know-he.)
As in huffing and puffing to look heftier and mightier than one’s real puny, sorry self. Paper tigers, the activists of the ‘60s call them. Menacing but totally harmless. Like some soldier-boys you and I know.
As in a mere foot soldier claiming full credit for victory in war.
Come to think of it, wasn’t the great 1st Lt. Ferdinand E. Marcos of USAFFE cited for single-handedly delaying the fall of Bataan and Corregidor for one month? Only, the citation came nearly 20 years after the fact, err, the lie.
There is one writer, Michael Korda in his book Power, if I am not mistaken, who pricked the vainglorious bubble thus: “Only a weakling will endeavor to display strength at every turn.”
So there, form over substance. Clanging cymbals signifying nothing, the Apostle Paul preached of vanities.
So beware of him that blows his own trumpet. For there is nothing there but hot, always fetid, air. And he too that follows him.
Take heed of Bacon: “(Vain)Glorious men are the scorn of wise men; the admiration of fools; the idols of parasites; and the slaves of their own vaunts.”
Lofty, lofty classical thoughts there we have to translate to current times. So, vainglory goes from the sublime to the, err, clinical. Yeah, to the child psychologist’s ADHD -- attention deficiency hyperactive disorder.
And from the clinical to the sublimely ridiculous, KSP – kulang sa pansin.
So have you noticed those bloated tarpaulined egos lately?
Truly pathetic.

(First published in Punto! Feb. 10, 2008, reprinted March 7-12, 2022 for its relevance to the times.)


Our good shepherd

 

“IF WE really pray together, (we would discern that) one cannot monopolize truth. Truth begins in the heart, the sanctuary of our conscience.”

Thus spoke the Most Reverend Paciano B. Aniceto, archbishop of San Fernando, at the thanksgiving Mass in celebration of his 71st birthday on Sunday.

He could well be speaking of that sector of society that has arrogated unto itself all possession of truth. But, no, the archbishop’s sermon encompasses all the faithful, their individual politics undistinguished.

In the presence of Her Excellency, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the Reverend Governor Eddie T. Panlilio, Congressman Dong Gonzales, City of San Fernando Mayor Oscar Rodriguez, and a host of other politicians and local leaders who were allowed through the stringent security measures imposed by the Presidential Security Guard at the Mother of Good Counsel Seminary, Apu Ceto shone as the shepherd truly worthy of his flock.

To Apu Ceto, there never are black sheep. He has faith in the goodness inherent in anyone, even among those who have gone astray. I should know, I was once Apu Ceto’s most prodigal child, converted by his faith in his God and his belief in me, notwithstanding my frailties.

“We need to purify and change. If we follow that process, we will have a peaceful and just society with integrity. You should watch and pray that you don’t fall into temptation.”

“Our country is at a crossroad. We are a divided people, eternally quarreling, bickering. Some media contribute to this. We are falling into the pit.” Apu Ceto warns.

But instead of taking his flock to the streets of protests to foment greater divisions, Apu Ceto, pointed them to the way that he has always embraced:

“We are asking the Lord to permeate every stratum of society. Families and leaders should work so there is a holistic approach in the search for a real, authentic, common good, for the progress and development of our people.”

Ora et labora. Pray and work. Christian life at its most essential.

“Let us pray together, discern together so that we could know the will of God for the Filipino people.”

Apu Ceto laid down anew, the very ground upon which sprang the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines pastoral statement on truth. That which, Apu Ceto lamented, made the shepherds “unpopular.”

He cautioned those that found cause for impatience, if not disbelief, in the pastoral statement: “The Church is a sign of contradiction but it comes from a position of strength because the center of evangelization is Jesus.”

Oh, how conveniently have we Christians forgotten the very paradox of our faith: of spiritual strength in human weakness, of the triumph in the Cross, of being born in dying.

“We have to give the precise mission of the Church, we do not respond to external pushes only. Intrinsic in its nature and mission, the Church must define society, not society defining us.”

Apu Ceto has spoken. And eloquently. Now, were the more loquacious – and mediaphilic – of our churchmen as discerning as him…

(Zona Libre, March 2008. Reprinted on the occasion of the Archbishop Emeritus of San Fernando Most Rev. Paciano B. Aniceto’s 85th birthday, March 9, 2022) 

 

 

Tragedy and farce

 EDSA UNO gifted the world with “people power.” The phrase was readily accredited to Cardinal Sin after he went on air to call on the nation “to use your power as a people” initially to “save” the embattled mutineers led by Enrile and Ramos from sure annihilation by the Marcos forces.

I do not mean to pull the rug from under the now dearly lamented Sin. Neither do I claim the gift of prescience or prophecy, but in the April 8-14, 1984 issue of The Voice – two months short of two years before EDSA Uno – the phrase already appeared in my Ingkung Milio column, thus titled:

People Power and the Filipino 

IN THE annals of political struggles, war included, people power has long claimed its rightful place as the major determining factor in the outcome.

This power received its utmost glorification in the social philosophies of Marx as embodied in his Communist Manifesto and put to empirical application in the Soviet and Chinese revolutions and countless other uprisings in those moulds, as well as in the failed Allende experiment in Chile.

That great Asian, Mao Tse-tung, summed up the potency of people power in various quotations in his Little Red Book, most prominent of which was: “The people are the ocean, we are the fish that swim in that ocean.” There too was his stratagem of marshalling the people from the countryside toward the encirclement of the cities.

With all these leftward tendencies of people power harnessing, populism has come to be identified with the communist prescription of wresting power from the ruling circle.

In its essence however, any move, be it parliamentary or revolutionary, has to mobilize people power to reach its successful or liberating end.

While we have seen people power in the collective anguish and indignation over Ninoy Aquino’s assassination, we have yet to see it in terms of concrete moves directed at our socioeconomic and political liberation.

Our history as a people is so replete with the kisses of Judas that they have become part and parcel of the Filipino psyche.

The betrayal of the Katipunan, Vicos to Diego Silang, the Macabebe scouts in Tirad Pass and Palanan (a still-debatable issue), the Makapili during the Japanese Occupation, not to mention the American boys and unconscionable cronies, are glaring examples of the quislings who have always sold their country and their people in exchange for personal gains.

More glaring even are the current events related to the coming Batasan polls.

The Opposition is united only in name – the first word in its acronym UNIDO. Beyond that, there is not even the finest thread that holds them together.

True, they all have an aversion to Marcos. Truer yet, they all draw “strength and inspiration” from the martyred Ninoy Aquino. Truest though, there is no clear-cut, selfless and nationalistic ideological basis for all their actions.

Rather, it is a case of everyone to his own selfish motive and ambition.

Invoking guidance from the sacrifice of Ninoy, they aspire – conspire may be the apt word – to move the people to exercise their potency for change. Not for the people’s own welfare, in the ultimate analysis, but for the advancement of their personal political ambitions.

It is Robespierre and his manipulation of the French masses in the 1790s all over again. Nearer home, it is the Tejeros debacle restaged in a not-totally dissimilar setting.

The fault however does not solely lie in these opportunists. Much of the blame is traceable to the people themselves.

The people, in all naivete and perhaps due to their fatalism bred by colonizers, foreign and home-grown, have been so accustomed to their hapless state that they could not see a power greater than the gun or the peso, even the devalued one. Bonifacio’s walis tingting has yet to form from the countless coconut ribs lying for the picking.

For a mere pittance, even those who wailed the most at Aquino’s wake and funeral found themselves like sheep herded to provide an audience to some ruler’s folly.

We will see more of these idiocies until May 14. To impress the greater mass of voters, politicians would pay for every shout of “Mabuhay!” and for every wearer of a vote T-shirt, for every trumped-up attestation of love for a candidate.

People power? In many a Third World country, this is the new order of things. In the Philippines, it is seen more in the powerlessness of the people to rise, stomp their feet, and state that enough is enough.

Ah, yes, despite all these, there is people power in this nation of cowards, to quote Mansfield. To us, that power is the people’s strength in crying out in pain for years, and their power to bear all sorts of insults and injustice. And their powerful refusal too to transform anguish into a fiery zeal for their own liberation.

Ninoy, you may have been wrong. It seems the Filipino is not worth dying for. AND THEN came EDSA Uno.

A vindication of Ninoy, his widow in yellow triumphant. Shining moment of the Filipino before the admiring world. Brief shining moment like the mythical Camelot, it turned out. Within 10 years, the Marcoses were back, their northern bailiwick as strong as ever.

A short 15 years after, EDSA Dos came. No, not against the dictator’s remnants, but one petty excuse for a president.

Another Aquino, the BS III in an interregnum of sorts, sampling Pampanga’s Glory-Been in his self-caricature of Mr. Clean.

In another 15 years from EDSA’s second coming, the nation descended to Duterte’s despotism.

2022. But one generation removed from the original EDSA, comes the son and namesake of the dictator at the cusp of claiming his birthright to the presidency.

Never again. Never forget. Not ever in the Filipino, alas.

Marx paraphrased: History repeating itself in the tragedy that was Marcos and the farce that is Marcos Junior.

Santayana impacted: Unlearning of the lessons of history, we are a people dumbed, we are a nation damned.

Rabelais dead-on: “Draw the curtains, the farce is played.”

Game over.

(Punto! Feb. 22, 2022)