02/12/2025
A Call for Integrity, Prudence, and True Democratic Dialogue
Sharing this thoughtful and incisive statement from EveryWoman, released in defense of Cardinal Ambo David. It offers a grounded, principled reminder of what responsible leadership and democratic engagement look like - rooted in humility, honesty, and respect for diverse strategies within a broad movement for accountability. In a moment when tensions run high and accusations are easily thrown, this reflection invites us back to discernment, dialogue, and the kind of unity built on integrity rather than coercion.
Below is the full text:
EVERYWOMAN STATEMENT: IN DEFENSE OF CARDINAL AMBO DAVID
With all due respect to Mr. Sonny Melencio, his response to Pablo Virgilio Cardinal David fundamentally misreads both the content and the spirit of his remarks before the Second Trillion Peso March in EDSA last November 30.
When Cardinal David explained why the organizers chose EDSA over Luneta, and why they were not carrying the call for a transition council, it was never an act of sowing division or elevating one protest over another. It was a simple, honest, and intellectually humble statement of fact: The Trillion Peso March organizers have not reached a consensus on the call of the Luneta group. He was transparent about the organizers’ position, and at the same time equally clear that he respects groups who have already taken that path, even as he candidly and openly expressed his apprehensions about the proposal.
That is how democracy works, with honesty and integrity.
This stands in stark contrast to some groups pushing for a transition council who, when their call meets minimal support from the public, immediately resorted to name calling, branding all who disagree with them as “opportunists” or “lackeys of the president.” That is what is divisive. It is puritanical, exclusivist, arrogant and ultimately, self-defeating. Political positions are not universal truths, and disagreement is not betrayal. Movements only weaken when dissent is punished and purity tests are imposed.
The organizers chose, at this point, not to adopt calls for the simultaneous resignations of both the top two leaders of the country, or a transition council, because they recognize how easily such demands can be weaponized by insidious forces waiting in the wings. The situation is complex and precarious, with various plotters eager to hijack public anger for their own ambitions. In their hands, sweeping resignations and a transition council risk enabling juntas or pseudo-revolutionary schemes with no democratic mandate, an extraconstitutional path that could become an escape route for plunderers and dynasties seeking to return under the guise of a reset.
For the Trillion Peso March organizers, the tactical calls are clear: hold all the corrupt to account, whether aligned with the administration or the Dutertes, abolish all political dynasties, and reject any military action that favors the Dutertes or installs a civilian-military junta in any form.
This prudence is embodied in Cardinal David’s “hindi pa” remark. He was clearly signalling that the organizers are continuously reading the public pulse and where the unfolding evidence will lead. He was not closing the door on other democratic options, he was recognizing that movements mature through careful timing and assessment of the balance of forces. That is political responsibility.
Melencio proudly notes that his group has called for “Resign All” and a transition council since 2000. Consistency can be admirable, but consistency does not substitute for development. The proposal, despite being already 25 years old, has failed to even begin to answer persuasively the most basic and necessary questions: Who will comprise this council? What is the roadmap to create it without falling into the machinations of right-wing actors? How long will this interim body govern? How will it operate within (or outside) the constitutional framework? In other words, the proposed transition council engenders a power vacuum and dangerous uncertainty pushing the entire country into chaos.
We also disagree with their reading that the situation in Nepal and Bangladesh did not require military intervention. Whatever else others may think of the military in Nepal or Bangladesh, we are certain that our cynicism about the Philippine security forces is warranted.
And yes, we can make a distinction between rightist forces just as much as we make distinctions between leftist ones. The lesser evil idea is not a simple calculation it is borne out by the deaths of thousands at the hands of the genocidal and fascist Dutertes. To fail to make the distinction between genocidal fascism and authoritarian kleptocracy is dangerous. We can disagree on how we read political forces without implying that we hold the deeper analysis.
We know as feminists that the most vulnerable group when civil order breaks down, even for just a day, is women. If you want to call this concern compromised or weak then we will accept that charge.
This moment should serve as a lesson. Just because one has held a belief for decades does not make it automatically correct, nor immune to scrutiny, nor above criticism. And it certainly does not make all who differ from it “enemies of the people.”
We will also take this moment to ask everyone to revisit the idea of unity on the long road to transformation. It is on this idea that we must all be united that demagogues, authoritarians and fascists proceed with undue haste to make us dance to the same tune. There have always been differences because the people, the masses, are not homogenous. Unity arrives when a critical mass comes together to effect change, through the open and deliberate discussion of differences between actors of good will.
Cardinal David acted with humility, clarity, and responsibility, qualities progressives need more of, not less. If unity is to mean anything, it must be rooted not in coercive agreement but in respect, openness, and the willingness to refine our positions in dialogue with the people, not above them. #
