CHARISMA STRONGER THAN A SUPER TYPHOON

By Bayawanon

The people keep on praising the president because he is good despite the blunders that he had committed. Imagine the Extra Judicial Killings that he spearheaded against the so-called bad elements in the society especially the drug personalities, the abandonment of the decision of the International Tribunal of the Law of the Seas in relation of the Philippine victory over China as regards the Philippines' territorial claims in the Spratlys, the gargantuan loan of the Philippines from China with huge interest rates, the passage of the anti-poor Comprehensive Tax Reform Program, the political persecution that he had committed against his detractors like Senator Leila de Lima, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, Commission on Human Rights Chairman Chito Gascon etc., the non implementation of his campaign promise of decontractualization of the private sector, the hero's burial of Ferdinand Marcos, a former dictator, etc,etc,

Despite these blunders the president had committed, the majority of the people still love him. Why? Can they not discern what is right from wrong? Does it mean that they do not care about our political situation anymore? Or they simply enjoy the damage that he is doing to the country?

Many people are happy about the Extra-Judicial Killings that are happening nowadays against the drug addicts, drug pushers, drug lords but they are not pushing for the annihilation of other undesirables in the community like the corrupt government officials, prostitutes, pimps, tax evaders, illegal gamblers, big time and small time thieves. Why? Are the other criminals and undesirables more special than the drug personalities?

The people are mum as regards to the Philippine Claim in the Spratlys which Duterte has ideally abandoned. All they care about are the acts of the president where they feel like they were benefitted, like the free college tuition fee, the free hospitalization, free medicine, the extension of the lifespan of the driver's licenses, the extension of the lifespan of the passports which PRACTICALLY helped them BUT IN REALITY PULLED DOWN THE ECONOMY. Why are these presidential acts inimical to the economy? These moves which are popular to the people are not good for the economy simply because these are DEAD INVESTMENTS of the government for the plain and simple reason that the government does not get any pecuniary gains out of it, the government simply does not get an ROI or RETURN OF INVESTMENTS out of these.

With the way things are going right now it seems like the people are out of logic in believing that the president is good or maybe he has a CHARISMA so strong and even much stronger than a SUPER TYPHOON.

DUTERTE: HOBBES-MACHIAVELLI HYBRID

By Bayawanon

Niccolo Machiavelli, an Italian philosopher in the 16th Century through his treatise "The Prince" once recommended that "the end justifies the means", that it is just fine if the means is not good as long as the end of the of the means would be good.

This might be the battle-cry of the Philippine President Duterte "the end justifies the means", the means in killing bad people like the drug addicts and pushers would be justified when the country would already be purged.

The question would then be like this, how can the society be totally purged when the drug problem and criminality are almost unsolvable? Will the killings not stop until the last drug personality and last criminal fall? If the answer to these queries would be in the affirmative, then the decimation of the so-called bad people of the community would not stop for no one is perfect in this world.

Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher in the 17th Century had once suggested in his political theory he dubbed as "The Leviathan", that for a country to be peaceful, the people should surrender/submit their rights to a central ruler or THE ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGN whom he called the Leviathan whose purpose is to rule and to defend the people from the enemies of the state.

This thing is also happening now under the present Duterte presidency, the president is painting himself as the SUPERMAN OF THE PHILIPPINES or as the Leviathan, the sole savior of the people. But the problem is, he is asking the people to surrender their inalienable and constitutional rights to be free.

Are the acts of the president which are Machiavellian and Hobbsian like be justified under a democratic state like the Philippines? The answer would be a BIG NO, for according to a song written and sung by an illustrious Filipino folk singer, Freddie Aguilar, "Ibon man may layang lumipad" which in English means EVEN A BIRD HAS THE FREEDOM TO FLY. If a bird should have a freedom to fly, much more than man should live freely and democratically.

The Hobbsian-Machiavellian hybrid brand of the leadership of President Duterte to me, is actually a threat to democracy and to its aggregates and must be checked by the people, otherwise the same would leave their future to the limbo of uncertainty if not darkness.

DUTERTE VS. DUTERTE

By Bayawanon

A revolution is an attempt to overthrow a government if the revolution would be successful, the victors then could establish a REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT.

President Duterte is proposing a Revolutionary Government, this government cannot come into being without a revolution, now because the president is proposing a revolutionary government, does it mean to say that he must stage a revolution against the duly constituted authority of the Philippines which he heads? The answer must be in the affirmative for Duterte to establish a revolutionary government he must stage a revolution first.

But can he stage a revolution against a duly elected government which he heads? The answer must be in the negative, for how can a duly elected supreme national leader rebel against himself?

I can still vividly recall the lecture of former Justice Secretary Sedfrey Ordonez more than twenty years ago, where he stressed that a Revolutionary Government can only be established after a successful revolution has overthrown a de jure or even a de facto government. Now, how can President Duterte establish a Revolutionary Government without a revolution?

Can President Rodrigo Roa Duterte establish ipso facto a government which cannot be found in the Constitution? The answer would be a very BIG NO, and because of this, it seems like Duterte is again contradicting himself by proposing a form of government which is unconstitutional.

NEMO DAT QUOD NON-HABET "One cannot give what it does not have", the Philippine Constitution does not give anyone the power to establish a revolutionary government for the plain and simple reason that the same constitution does not provide for it. In connection to this, the President must stop talking about this Revolutionary Government in order for him to stop confusing the public, otherwise, it's gonna be him against himself.