Fascism with Filipino Characteristics: Impeachment of Sara Duterte

 

FASCISM WITH FILIPINO CHARACTERISTICS: THE IMPEACHMENT OF SARA DUTERTE

THE DOUBLE FACE OF IMPEACHMENT

By: Randy David - @inquirerdotnet

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:02 AM February 09, 2025

The impeachment this week of Vice President Sara Duterte by the House of Representatives marks a formal indictment following a months-long congressional investigation into her alleged illegal actions. It initiates her trial before the Senate, acting as a quasi-judicial body.

From the outset, impeachment reveals its dual nature. It is fundamentally political, designed to remove the nation’s second-highest official and disqualify her from future office. While she may later face criminal charges, those will be decided in ordinary courts.

The prosecution will be led by politicians, most of whom may also be legal professionals, while judgment falls to “senator-judges” who, despite their judicial robes, are foremost political actors in a political drama. Some may conscientiously weigh evidence and vote based on principle, but none are immune to political pressure, and partisan voting is not just expected—it is inherent to the process.

Yet, impeachment is cloaked in legal formality. The proceedings mimic judicial trials, with the Supreme Court chief justice co-chairing alongside the Senate president to provide a veneer of legal rigor. This performative gesture is meant to temper the raw arithmetic of political will.

Those familiar with impeachment understand it as a numbers game. However, its legal framework shapes public expectations of fairness, making the law more than a mere ornament. While political analysts emphasize impeachment’s political nature, senator-judges are under pressure to project objectivity. A verdict seen as purely partisan risks stripping the process of legitimacy.

…Having closely followed hearings led by the House appropriations committee and the powerful “quad comm,” I found the case against Duterte meticulously constructed. Testimonies, particularly on her misuse of confidential funds, appeared difficult to dispute—at least from a middle-class perspective. The arrogant and self-entitled attitude she projected only served to affirm her guilt.

Yet, conversations with ordinary Filipinos—drivers, gardeners, construction workers, vendors—reveal a different narrative. Many, swayed by radio commentators and TikTok vloggers, see Duterte as a victim of political persecution, betrayed by those who leveraged her family’s influence to seize power. This view unfortunately aligns with a deep-rooted cynicism about the country’s politics—that all politicians are corrupt, and the only distinction between the “good” and the “bad” is whether they share their spoils with the poor or keep them for themselves. It is a grim perspective, but not without foundation.

With the 2025 midterm elections looming, impeachment has become more than a constitutional process—it has become a battleground shaping the 2028 presidential race. Duterte’s supporters frame it as an insidious attempt to eliminate her candidacy. They believe, perhaps rightly, that if she survives this assault, she will emerge as the strongest contender for the presidency. Many senator-judges may see it like that, too, and vote according to whether or not they expect and want her to be the next president.

The real challenge, as I see it, is persuading the public, and not just the senator-judges, that this is not merely a high-stakes rivalry between political dynasties but a test of the nation’s commitment to public trust and governance. Without this clarity, impeachment risks becoming just another episode in the long saga of power struggles among political clans, devoid of real meaning for the people it is meant to serve.

public.lives@gmail.com

Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/180681/the-double-face-of-impeachment#ixzz91PyphFt9

Notable about David’s analysis is his contrast between the robust evidence testifying to Sara’s plunder and abuse of power—evidence that would decide the case for the middle-class minority of the Philippine electorate—and the ostensible disregard of the lower-class majority for the evidence. It is this class that according to David’s account would interpret the impeachment as principally or even purely a political process. Impeachment would be in their eyes simply the spectacle of elite Philippine players jockeying for power, so that the guilt or innocence of the accused is basically irrelevant to the outcome. What matters for the lower-class is that the result coincides with Sara’s popularity, in Visayas and Mindanao, particularly. In other words, it would not be the rule of the law that matters in settling the verdict but rather the extent of the vice president’s political support. In this political regime, populism trumps the rule of law.

The apparent division of mindsets between the middle-class and the lower-class indicates that the Philippines remains a tribal society in which kinship loyalties take precedence over democratic values and principles.

The middle-class, presumably, is more educated and acculturated according to how genuine democracy operates and maintains.

In contrast, for the lower-class, elections and other forms of political support are simply ways to express pre-modern tribalism.

Politics in the Philippines is tribalism based on kinship loyalties.

Political tribalism has been defined as, “loyalty to the political tribe is more important than loyalty to anything else.”

“Political tribalism is about identities and thus is rooted deeply in emotions. This is why political arguments these days often degenerate into outrage and animosity: people feel as if their identities are under attack when their politics are attacked.”

https://www.thebanner.org/columns/2020/02/political-tribalism

—Shiao Chong, “Political Tribalism,” Banner, February 17, 2020

Political tribalism in the Philippines is a type of fascism.

“What especially distinguishes Philippine fascism is that it builds on the hierarchical power structure of Philippine society originally configured according to the extended family ownership of vast landholdings and the accompanying tenancy relations. In this sense Philippine society is originally feudal.

“Politicians and business bigwigs today are descendants of this elite class, or otherwise they are newbies who have succeeded in Philippine politics and subsequently leveraged their newfound power to gather and consolidate economic resources with the resulting political wherewithal. Notably, the elite of Philippine society recapitulate fascist elite.

“The foregoing political system has been described as ‘cacique democracy.’ Because it converges in its defining attributes with fascism, it might also be described as ‘fascism with Philippine characteristics.’”

https://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2023/02/fascism-with-filipino-characteristics.html

To the extent that fascism in the Philippines militates against democratic values and principles, it is pre-modern and anti-democratic.

A SELF-DESTRUCTING NATION?

By: Cielito F. Habito - @inquirerdotnet

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 04:30 AM February 18, 2025

A sinking feeling that our nation is in a self-destruction mode seems to be setting in among many of us, if remarks I now frequently hear or read are any indication. These invariably focus on how bad politicians are ruining our nation and its future, yet keep winning elections, nonetheless. …I constantly hear nostalgic remarks about how our senators used to be honorable statesmen/women, most of them lawyers and luminaries in their fields. Now we have clowns, misfits, and shady characters with no reason for winning votes other than having names voters can easily recall, owing to careers in entertainment, media, business, or even crime. Not even past records of incompetence, zero legislative output, or even convictions for crime have stopped them from winning elections.

…many believe and can prove, that elections have been rigged and manipulated electronically—and persistent questions on our recent elections make such suspicions quite credible. It is widely believed that elective offices can be bought in the Philippines, both at retail, via direct vote-buying, and at the wholesale level, by buying election tampering. Either way, we seem doomed to keep getting the wrong kind of leaders elected into office—leaders who run primarily for the power and wealth the office brings, rather than out of desire to bring about positive change. And this breeds the political dynasties that keep growing in this country, even as they are diminishing in mature democracies elsewhere.

How could we have had only respectable men and women elected to our Senate in the past, and yet have a Senate composition now that suggests a retrogression in the political maturity of Filipino voters? Why did our voters’ political maturity seemingly move in the reverse direction over the last few decades? Most people would point to bad education and how it has deteriorated over the past few decades, leon the reasoning that lack of good education is what leads people to vote for those candidates who are ruining our nation. …Hardly anyone would dispute that the deteriorated state of our education system, hence the deteriorated state of education of the wide mass of Filipino voters, is what has led to our political retrogression.

…Our education system is in such a bad state because our elected leaders have neglected it, both knowingly and unknowingly. …We are trapped in a vicious circle of self-destruction where bad politicians’ neglect for education and other priority human development needs has bred voters that keep voting those same characters into power. Worse, the latter would have every motivation to keep us trapped in that vicious circle, because it allows them to perpetuate their families’ hold on power and wealth that political office brings.

I have written before about how frequent calls for voter education may be misplaced, even arrogant, and that it may be those who want voters “educated” that need to be educated by those they wish to “educate.” …For some, persistent poverty leads them to keep looking for leaders who can promise immediate relief, including wads of cash and promises of more to come. For thinking voters, the motivation could be a long-simmering dissatisfaction with the existing order, and anyone who sounds like he/she can deliver drastic change would attract their support. Having seen little improvement in their lives across various leaderships, it’s natural for common folk to embrace leaders who break out of the familiar mold—or resign to the belief that all candidates behave the same way once elected anyway.

Meanwhile, our march to self-destruction continues, and our only way out is for the elite and middle class to take a direct role in shaping a better future for the nation, rather than wait for our elected leaders to do it.

Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/180901/a-self-destructing-nation#ixzz91Q1pWUSo

Habito identifies at least one major factor that influences the vicious cycle of electing bad leaders, which he describes as “leaders who run primarily for the power and wealth the office brings, rather than out of desire to bring about positive change into office”—it is “the deteriorated state of our education system…[that] has led to our political retrogression.”

Education in a democracy entails inculcating in the population democratic values and principles and as well as conveying to citizens how democracy itself works so that they internalize the system. Education along these lines is indispensable to making democracy work. Neglect will produce a population that appears to practice democracy but does so superficially—the citizenry conducts themselves as would a pre-modern feudal society and votes according to tribal loyalties.

Education particularly in both history and critical thinking is necessary to making democracy work. Responding to concerns raised by an interviewer about fascist threats to U.S. democracy, history professor Kimber Quinney underscores that this type of focused education is essential to ensuring that democracy works.

“In my view, education is indeed a guardian of democracy. [boldface mine] And I do mean K-12, but of course I especially value the role of higher education. The college campus provides us a context in which to debate ideas and differences of opinion — and to see that as a goal of learning. It is an education in democracy because our goal is to learn from, and share opinions with, each other. 

“… Historians want evidence. Every claim we make when we interpret the past must be informed by documents, by sources, by evidence that is cross-checked against other pieces of evidence. We are trained to check the authenticity of sources; we ask who wrote that document, when, and we do our best to interpret why. We also corroborate the sources — we cannot simply rely on a single document to tell the story. 

“We call this kind of critical thinking ‘historical thinking.’ Another important aspect of historical thinking is that we do our best to acknowledge our own biases, first, but also try to set those biases aside so that the documents — the historical voices of the past — are prioritized. 

“…Civic learning is not just about memorizing the preamble of the Declaration of Independence or learning more about the electoral college. Democracy is about participating, becoming informed, and making your own decisions. One of the core lessons of history is that people make choices and choices make history.

“…History empowers. Every single one of us, no matter our social status or our race or our gender, makes history. Each of us has an opportunity — individually and collectively — to participate in democracy.”

https://news.csusm.edu/ask-the-expert-fascism-and-the-fragility-of-democracy/

—Brian Hiro, “Ask the Expert: Fascism and the Fragility of Democracy,” CSUSM News Center, November 2, 2020