1

With less than a year until the presidential elections in May 2022, numerous
politicians are among the prospective contenders for the highest office in the land. Davao
City Mayor Sara Duterte, Former Senator Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. and Manila Mayor Francisco
“Isko” Moreno Domagoso, or best known as Isko Moreno are the top bets of Filipinos among
probable presidential candidates in the looming national and local polls.

People’s standpoints anent their Presidential bets

In an open disciplinary interview conducted to an 18-year old lad who refused to

disclose his name, he noted that Mayor Duterte is the ideal person to be the country’s next
president, considering her excellent track record and exceptional leadership. She also
demonstrated all the traits that every Philippine president should possess, including having
political will, courage, and passion to serve the people.

On the contrary, according to a 56-year old Tagbinanhon that Marcos has plethora of
contributions to the country. He was the author of 34 Senate bills and was co-author of 17
more, 7 of which became Republic Acts. Among them are the Anti-Drunk and Drugged
Driving Act, the Cybercrime Prevention Act, the Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act,
and the National Health Insurance Act. How much more if he will be given the opportunity to
sit in the presidential post.

The interviewee added that braving the possibility of arrest from the new regime,
Bongbong was the first among his family to return from exile in 1992. No sooner had he
stepped back on Philippine soil than he took up where he left off and started serving the
Filipino people once again. In the same year, he was elected to Congress as Representative
for the Second District of his home province, Ilocos Norte. Among the measures he authored
was the landmark law establishing the Philippine Youth Commission.

He was also instrumental in advancing the cause of cooperatives by devoting most of

his Countryside Development Fund (CDF) to organizing cooperatives of teachers and fanners
in his home province; hence, it is no doubt of being worthy to become the chief of the state
for the next six years.

Those millions of Manileños have only had Mayor Isko as the “father of the city” for a
little over a year, but the change that he has brought to the city has been astoundingly
 2

positive, difficult to ignore even by his worst detractors. Manila is cleaner, safer, and slowly
being restored to its former glory. With that being said, Mr. Jericho Alvarez, a resident of
Barangay Poblacion uttered that if Moreno would file his candidacy to vie his luck as
President, he would not hesitate to cast his vote.

Furthermore, Mr. Alvarez acknowledged the city government’s achievements since

the aforementioned Mayor was sworn into office such as the accreditation of the city’s
higher tax collections to the “Go! Manila” mobile application and website, a digital platform
where residents can pay their taxes, certificates, and assessment fees, among others, without
physically going to Manila City Hall. Meanwhile, a total of 8,665 newly-registered businesses
and 51,022 renewed businesses were opened in the city during Domagoso’s first year in
office. The Manila mayor ascribed this to the growing trust and confidence of business
owners in the city government. Above all, Moreno and his local government has responded
to the Covid-19 Pandemic with decisiveness and pragmatism.

In conformity to the 1987 constitution, no person may be elected President unless

he/she is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write,
at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at
least ten years immediately preceding such election; thus, these top three frontrunners are
eligible and are likely to come out of the woodwork to file their candidacy papers at the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC).

Potential top contenders for Presidential post by The Manila Times

As specified in the latest Pulse Asia Survey, Mayor Sara Duterte-Carpio has emerged
as a possible top contender for president in the 2022 national elections. The nationwide
survey from February 22 to March 3 showed that 27 percent of Filipinos would support
Duterte-Carpio succeeding her father, Rodrigo Duterte, as president should the 2022
elections be held this year.

She got majority preference from Mindanao with 60 percent, followed by Visayas (21
percent), Luzon (17 percent), and the National Capital Region (12 percent). In previous
interviews, Duterte-Carpio said she would decide by January 2021 if she would push through
with a presidential bid.
 3

In the meantime, Marcos is in second place with a 13 percent preference rating

followed by Sen. Grace Poe and Manila Mayor Francisco "Isko Moreno" Domagoso, who is
tied at third place with 12 percent preference ratings. Sen. Emmanuel Pacquiao obtained an
11 percent preference rating while Vice President Maria Leonor "Leni" Robredo got 7 percent
(The Manila Times, 2021).

Nevertheless, we as Filipinos will have to make a vital decision on who we want to be

the country's next president this early or for the next 10 months. We will not just be
choosing a successor to President Rodrigo Duterte rather we will be confronted with the
gravest and most harrowing crisis in Philippine history.

The pandemic's wreckage of the national economy has become intolerable and
unquantifiable. A recession has kicked in; our economy is as bankrupt as it was after the end
of World War II in 1946. Millions of people have lost their jobs. Many families are struggling
to fulfill their basic necessities, and employment opportunities are few. Some people are
already suffering from hunger and privation. The majority of our businesses suffered huge
losses, and several were forced to close.

In addition, the national treasury is completely depleted. The country owes a lot of
money. It will continue to borrow money to fund economic recovery measures as well as the
expense of obtaining protection against the deadly virus.

What's paradoxical is that the only way for anyone to avoid infection is via inactivity
and seclusion. It is almost like awaiting death with resignation. The difficulties that continue
to plague the Duterte government will exacerbate and complicate the situation. Corruption
and graft have grown even more prevalent and ubiquitous which propelled the Philippines
to be presently tagged as the world's fourth most corrupt country.

President Duterte has confessed defeat on several times in his fight against the drug
scourge and widespread corruption. The next president, on that account, will rule over a
nation that is impoverished and morally exhausted.

Contrariwise, a voter will have a tough time selecting which candidate merits his vote
the most. No one of the known presidential candidates possesses such a clear moral or
 4

political ascendency that they are beyond the grasp of the rest. In terms of national
prominence and height, no one stands taller than the others.

However, what our country urgently demands today is a great political architect, a
shrewd diplomat, an economic magician, and a dignified leader with an unblemished and
unshakable reputation. Who of the known candidates have these qualities and qualifies for
the position? Regardless of who is picked, they can make an effort to satisfy the presidential
prescription. The majority of the standards can be met. The highest and most demanding
academic credentials are available. What is not readily obtainable is character.

For instance, the characteristics of an exemplary President may be summed up in the

abbreviation PANGULO, which is the Filipino term for president. Patriotism, audacity, nation-
building, grassroots outreach, and unyielding commitment have all been demonstrated by
previous leaders of state. On the other hand, two essential characteristics are woefully
lacking: inadequate liberation and open government.

PATRIOTISM, of certainly, should be the cornerstone of every presidential Pantheon.

Every leader and candidate must profess to love the country, even if they have abandoned
her under pressure of hostile occupation or in search of a better life elsewhere.

Emilio Aguinaldo, president of the First Philippine Republic in 1898-1901, revolted

twice against Spain, abandoning comfortable Hong Kong exile to reignite revolution and
fight the Spaniards, then the Americans, the latter in a most brutal war. The freedom he
could not win on the battlefield Manuel Quezon, president of the Philippine Commonwealth
from 1935 to his death in 1944, negotiated in Washington.

Their determination to bring forth the Republic instead of letting the archipelago
continue centuries of colonial rule, must count as gems of patriotism. Sure, many of our
leaders have sadly delivered the governance Quezon cited, as his grandson Manolo recalls: “I
prefer a country run like hell by Filipinos to a government run like heaven by Americans ...
because however bad a Filipino government might be, we can always change it.”

Asserting our identity and independence as a nation has challenges, yet assert it we
did, thanks to Aguinaldo and Quezon.
 5

AUDACITY can also be ascribed to the two leaders in seeking freedom from foreign
rule. Audacious too were social and economic reforms instituted by Diosdado Macapagal
(1961-65) and Fidel Ramos (1992-98).

Both faced entrenched vested interests in their push for change: the landlord class,
which controlled Congress and opposed Macapagal's agrarian reforms, and powerful state
and private monopolists and protectionists, who refuted Ramos' liberalization of
telecommunications, power, aviation, and international trade.

In the present milleu, Filipinos are in dire need another president to propel new
reforms against even tougher moneyed and potent sectors: the dominant political class
abetted by unprecedented and unprosecuted sleaze, especially record smuggling and pork;
and certain business and professional sectors blocking efforts to make goods and services
better, the distribution of national wealth more equitable, and the country more
environmentally responsible.

NATION-BUILDING, a shiboleth in many a presidentiable’s slogan box, is exemplified

by three leaders who presided over public construction on a massive scale. Manuel Roxas
(1946-48), the 1946 Republic’s inaugural president who died halfway into his four-year term,
and his successor Elpidio Quirino (1948-53) mounted the gargantuan rebuilding program
after the Second World War.

Along with Aguinaldo’s battle against two colonizing powers, raising the prostrate
Philippines from the agony and ashes of conflict and conquest has to count as the biggest
challenge for any Filipino leader in history. That after a decade, the country was Asia’s
second most prosperous after Japan must count as a sterling achievement in nation-
building.

Quirino, however, is remembered today more for the corruption and election fraud
that tarred his rule. So is the other Chief Executive notable in nation-building: Ferdinand
Marcos (1965-86). For all its faults and excesses, from top-to-bottom corruption to
widespread arrests, torture and liquidation, the Marcos decades saw major national
institutions, legal regimes, and infrastructure put in place.
 6

The Pan-Philippine Highway from north to south, the nationwide electricity grid and
generation system with pioneering geothermal plants, Manila’s culture and conference
waterfront complex are among Marcos’s legacies. So is the overseas labor industry, one of
the pillars of our resilient economy, despite its undeniable social burdens. And countless
state organs and national laws underpinning our governance system, including precursors of
major Cabinet departments, leading government corporations, and the law enforcement and
justice system.

GRASSROOTS OUTREACH is, of course, a must for any presidential candidate to have
a fighting chance at the hustings. But some have more mass appeal than others. And Ramon
Magsaysay (1953-57) and Joseph Estrada (1998-2001) top them all, with the latter still
enjoying immense popularity despite his plunder conviction, and the former’s family name
winning big votes for his descendants till this day.

The grassroots appeal isn’t just for popularity and votes. Part of presidential
leadership is winning broad public support for one’s policies and programs. And often,
personal charisma is more persuasive than the soundness of initiatives, especially if these
action plans are too complex for ordinary people to understand.

Reaching out to the masses also conveys to the citizenry, especially the poor, that the
national leadership and the government cares for them and will address their needs. This
isn’t just feel-good public relations, but an essential element of maintaining state authority
and influence, as well as the citizenry’s respect for and adherence to law.

Plainly, if the masses don’t feel they can count on the President, then pretty much no
one would, since the elite and the middle class have even less need of the government.

Yes, Marcos certainly did much damage to the nation with his cronies and his ill-
advised policies sheltering or exploiting certain economic sectors. And he would not have
been able to fashion so much of the physical, legal, and institutional infrastructure if he had
not shut down Philippine democracy and ruled by decree for a dozen years beyond what
should have been his last term. Still, he did have a vision for development, which he
implemented with undoubted benefits for the nation, along with many failings.
 7

Given the macho bias of many Filipinos, UNYIELDING COMMITMENT isn’t the trait
the citizenry may expect from presidents of the fairer sex. But tough political will was what
Corazon Aquino and Gloria Arroyo displayed, both in taking on rulers over governance
issues, and in facing down extra-constitutional assaults on their democratic rule.

With his iron grip on power after two decades of rule, Marcos belittled Corazon
Aquino’s challenge and confidently called the 1986 snap elections. Coup plotters also
thought she would fold, as did those who tried to unseat Arroyo. Both women withstood
their foes and made Philippine democracy stronger.

More important, Aquino and Arroyo maintained their commitment to their reform
agenda, despite the subversive threats which could easily have justified abandoning the
plans. Aquino maintained her commitment to restoring democracy after one and a half
decades of dictatorship, rather than resorting to autocracy in the face of putschist plots.

And in the midst of political crisis and soaring oil prices, Arroyo pursued the crucial
2005 fiscal reforms which ushered in today’s robust economy, public finances and business
confidence. She could have delayed the increase of value-added tax to 12 percent and its
imposition on fuel and electricity until unrest and crude costs had subsided. But she went
ahead, underpinning the subsequent economic surge.

The last two qualities for the ideal Chief Executive are claimed by those who walked
Malacañang’s halls. Every president and presidentiable has promised LIBERATION FOR THE
POOR and transparent, OPEN GOVERNANCE. But what the nation has seen falls far short of
the promise.

The decline of poverty from a third to a fifth of the population in the past three
decades is better than nothing, but pales beside far greater reductions in Thailand, Indonesia
and Vietnam over the same period. What’s worse, the Philippines fell from second most
prosperous nation in Asia 60 years ago to a regional laggard till services exports, fiscal
reforms, and crucial infrastructure lifted growth and investment over the past decade.

Still, what has been achieved in poverty eradication and open governance has been
unimpressive, if not woefully inadequate. Plainly, Chief Executives have favored urban areas
 8

in development policies and funding, including measures to keep crop prices down for city
consumers, hurting the countryside, where most of the poor are.

Nor do government leaders readily adopt initiatives to channel more resources to the
poor if their moneyed backers object. Thus, Corazon Aquino’s agrarian reform kept big
haciendas like her family’s intact through the unjust stock distribution scheme.

As for transparency, politicians invariably call for openness when in opposition, but
promptly forget those demands when in power. If candidates truly support open
governance, they should make personal pledges to release all material on their decisions and
programs, with monetary penalties for failure to fulfill the pledge.

Will presidentiables and the next President stand up and take action for the
impoverished, rural as well as urban, and for transparent, accountable governance?

We hope so. But really, if the nation truly wants to liberate the poor and open up
government, let’s not depend solely on the President to deliver. The citizenry, especially the
wealthy and well-meaning, must not only prod the state, but undertake our own initiatives
for the disadvantaged. And the public and the media must repeatedly press for the truth in
governance controversies.

To get leaders with PANGULO traits, we the people must ourselves be patriotic,
audacious nation-builders, mobilizing up to the grassroots with unyielding commitment to
liberate the poor and open up governance.

Dilemmas emerged ahead and on the PH polls

In 2010, political parties in the Philippines observed the country’s first nationwide use
of electronic technology for elections. The introduction of e-counting technology was
expected to reduce fraud and errors during counting and tabulation (canvassing). Thus, it
was hoped that the number of electoral complaints and protests filed by parties and
candidates would decrease. However, due to several factors, electoral protests increased in
2010. The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal received a record number of cases in
2010. The COMELEC also received more cases filed by losing candidates in 2010 than in the
2007 elections.
 9

Some of the protests were related to the electronic technology used in the elections,
including complaints about: erroneous counting of votes or misreading of ballots by the
optical-scan machines; errors in the initialization of optical-scan machines; errors in
transmission and consolidation of results; erroneous rejection of ballots; nonimplementation
of security measures; and manipulation of optical-scan machines and/or compact flash cards.
Ultimately, many cases were dismissed due to insufficient evidence or on procedural
grounds.

Reflecting upon their experiences with monitoring and filing complaints, the major
political parties cited a number of lessons learned. A lack of IT training and tools for
observing the new technologies made it difficult for party agents to collect the necessary
evidence to support their candidates’ claims. Parties also pointed to the importance of
making sure the courts have the IT capacity to effectively rule on technology-related cases.
They also noted that the cost of filing complaints has increased, since parties have to hire
more specialized legal and IT expertise, significantly adapt party pollwatcher trainings and
tools, and educate themselves in more detail about the new technologies.

While these technologies open up new frontiers and offer new possibilities for the
electoral process, careful consideration also needs to be given to the risks of inappropriate
or untimely introduction of technology, especially if it has the potential to compromise
transparency, local ownership or sustainability of the electoral process. Cybersecurity in
elections has and will continue to receive attention from the public, governments and media.
Although technological improvements to the administration of elections can be substantial,
these gains must be balanced with the potential for new vulnerabilities and problems. Many
of the countries that experimented with e-voting, for example, are now returning to pen and
paper or scrapping their pilot projects because of security issues. When abandoning
technologies is infeasible, good preparation can help mitigate similar cybersecurity risks.

Besides, why cannot the Philippines extricate itself from the plight that forces many of
its citizens to swallow indignities as domestics abroad, to endure backbreaking labor in
building edifices that does not pay them enough to escape a life in shanties, to sell their
bodies and/or their principles to buy a bit of insurance against unemployment, to break laws
protecting pedestrians and motorists to eke out a living as street vendors, to steal and
commit other serious crimes to stave off hunger or deal with medical emergencies—and to
exhibit indifference to the blatant abuses of those in power?
 10

The answer crawled into my consciousness after the midterm elections, when
moneyed politicians once more shamelessly demonstrated the power of a perennial and
most lethal weapon: vote-buying. If we can’t find or invent a more potent weapon to counter
it, I don’t think we can ever slay the monsters that plague us.

Such as:

Corruption. Even if elected government officials are guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of stealing public funds, their reelection should be expected if they have amassed enough
wealth to buy enough votes. Their top priority is to recover their campaign expenses and
accumulate more wealth to buy votes and favorable decisions from the courts.

Soaring prices of commodities. Elected leaders are not ardently adopting meaningful
measures, showing that they are more afraid of losing the campaign contributions of big
business than drawing the anger of their constituents. They are convinced that there will,
after all, be a sufficient number of votes that can be bought with cash or through ads and
fake news.

Worsening peace and order. How can the fight against crime be won if serving as
protector of crime syndicates guarantees a reliable flow of funds to buy votes? There will
always be drug dealers protected by “ninja cops” that are in turn protected by crooked
government officials protected by campaign funds generated by criminal activities.

Everyone seems to be aware of the situation. Yet as every election approaches, a

large number of Filipinos still express hope that honest candidates will win, only to be
disappointed because those built to genuinely represent the people are extremely unlikely to
make it. The voter’s choice is always sabotaged by explosions of purchased votes.

Our best bet—in fact our only hope—is a solid vote against vote-buying.

In the midterm elections, how many came out victorious among the candidates who
had secured the endorsement of the leaders of groups claiming that they could successfully
produce bloc voting? If we can accurately count those votes and confirm that they had been
 11

game-changers, will we allow those leaders to essentially dictate again the results of the next
elections, with help from politicians determined to keep their political dynasties by engaging
also in buying the individual votes of citizens helpless against the seduction of food to
nurture them for a few days?

The endorsement of the People’s Choice Movement failed to counterbalance the

impact of votes apparently sold in the last elections, perhaps because the leadership of the
Church would not unequivocally bless the strengthening of the Catholic vote. It appears now
that the most effective way to achieve a fair election is this: Form an organization that will
quietly but actively recruit a sufficient number of voters, who will pledge a solid vote for
candidates selected by its members, not by its leaders. The members will meet a few days
before the elections to come up with a list of candidates to be supported. Needless to say,
the list will not include those assessed to have been buying votes or who are endorsed by
leaders of groups demonstrating selfish bloc voting.

Thus, candidates will no longer feel the need, or will be afraid, to buy votes or woo
the endorsement of those leaders.

In consideration of that, we need to make a pitch that we can begin to address our
society’s ills or to get rid of officials unworthy of their posts short of resorting to acts of
violence. We must start persuading people to make small but effective contributions to
slaying stagnation, such as making a written pledge that they will cast a solid vote to defeat
vote-buying. Let us show that we care enough for our nation and want truly democratic
elections.

Role of media in the course of election

The media are critical to democracy, and democratic elections are difficult to hold
without them. A free and fair election entails not just the right to vote and the knowledge of
how to vote, but also a participatory process in which voters engage in public discussion and
have enough information about parties, policies, candidates, and the election process itself
to make educated decisions.

In order to perform their duties, the media must maintain a high degree of
professionalism, accuracy, and impartiality in their coverage. Regulatory frameworks can help
 12

to achieve high standards. Fundamental liberties vital to democracy, such as freedom of

information and speech, as well as participation, should be guaranteed by laws and
regulations. In the interim, regulations such as mandating government media, which is
supported by public funds, to provide fair coverage and equal access to opposition parties
aid in ensuring acceptable media behavior during elections.

The term "media" has traditionally been used to refer to both the written press and
radio and television broadcasters. However, in recent years, the term has evolved broader,
embracing new media such as internet journalism and social media. Citizen journalism is
growing popularity, even in nations where traditional media is restricted or severely
regulated.

Back in 2016, the presidential contest is widely considered as the first "social media
election" in the Philippines. At the same time, it remains unclear if or how social media
helped Rodrigo Duterte mobilize voters to gain victory. There are three main social media
campaigning models: broadcast, grassroots and self-actualizing. Based on our comparative
analysis of 20-million Facebook activities and 39,942 randomly sampled comments across
the official Facebook pages of key presidential candidates, we find evidence to support the
grassroots model as his profile was the most engaged despite his lack of engagement. Such
inconsistencies raise the prospect that Duterte's online victory was fabricated by paid trolls
and fake accounts. Instead, our analysis suggests that Duterte's digital fanbase was, at least
in part, a reflection of offline, grassroots political support.

In particular, data from an original survey of 621 respondents suggests that Duterte
supporters were not only aggressive in their support for Duterte online, they were also more
committed to him offline as well. These findings add to a growing literature on social media
and politics that seeks to understand the broader ecosystem of online political discourse,
rather than focusing on the actions and strategies of political campaigns. They also
underscore the fine line between fabricated support and genuine political fervor.

Once and for all as the Philippines approaches the 2022 elections, we have time to
think about our own country’s leadership. Those who think they can do anything while in
power will be confronted by the same finite reality. Sure, there is a chance that they may
cling on to power for a few more years. But democratic leaderships in this country have a
beginning and an end. Nothing is forever. And while our high-ranking officials often get
 13

away with crimes committed while in office, and our judiciary may not be the most effective,
these should not stop us from using judicial mechanisms to demand not just justice in terms
of play of words, rhetoric, and strategies, but justice in its true substance.

The close of election means not just a celebration of victory or consoling those who
lost. For us voters, it is a time to reflect on the end, continuation, or the beginning of visions
and actions that we have collectively chosen for our society—whether or not they are
mindful of the lessons of the past, attuned to the needs of the present, and responsible for
their consequences in the future. For politicians, it ought to be the time to reflect on the
legacy they want to leave to society, and to feel the weight of responsibility they carry in
charting the present and the future of their fellow citizens.
 14

Interview questions:

1. Who do you want to run for the 2022 Presidential election?

Interviewee 1: Davao City Mayor Duterte

Interviewee 2: Former Senator Bongbong Marcos

Interviewee 3: Mayor Isko Moreno

2. What are the qualities that he/she possesses that make him/her eligible for the
highest office in the nation?

Interviewee 1: “May malasakit, makabayan, maka diyos, good political background/

experience, approachable”.

Interviewee 2: “Experienced in terms of politics, maaasahan gaya ng kanyang papa,

maraming na tulong sa kapwa, matalino as he was able to contribute 34 senate bills and
co author 17 more, passionate in his line of work”.

Interviewee 3: “Strong political will/power, may malasakit, matulungin, always sa tamang

desisyon. He made a lot of improvements to Manila City and responded the pandemic
judiciously”.

3. What improvements do you expect if the opportunity will be given to him/her to take
the grasp of the Presidential sit?
 15

Interviewee 1: “She can be as robust as her father. It’s pretty evident how he handled
Davao as Mayor and let just see nalang the contributions she could make if she will have
the hap to become President”.

Interviewee 2: “Philippines will become globally competitive and big transformations will
be anticipated just like how Marcos "transformed Ilocos Norte into a first-class province
of international acclaim, by showcasing its natural and cultural destinations. He could
also pioneer the wind power technology that serves as an alternative source of energy
for the whole archipelago. More bills will be made for the sake of his countrymen”.

Interviewee 3: “Just like how he did in Manila, Philippines will become cleaner, safer and
we will have a more stern peace and order”.

of