12/05/2024
MY SILENCE IS NEUTRALITY
In 2019, the majority of my party mates in PDP LABAN in Metro Manila, including myself, had no interest of continuing support of this party, it became the breeding ground of greedy power brokers, most of these newly assimilated members are turncoats, and some had even pending criminals cases before the Sandigan Bayan for Corruption charges. Most of us now had few political opinions and viewed anything political as the “dirty theater” of our government that did not require our engagement — not because of our patriotism to the country, but rather because of the lack of necessity.
A year later, upon the instruction of then Secretary of TESDA Atty. Guiling Mamondiong, our National Chairman of MRRD NECC to create political party, since MRRD NECC is people’s organization not accredited political party. We create the name PARTIDO FERDERAL NG PILIPINAS (PFP), we held the first convention in Calatagan, Batangas, the place of the famous beauty Artist Ricky Reyes’s Magnificent Beach Resort. I was elected among the few as the first member of the national executive committee with General Lantion, Atty Briones, Freddie Aguilar and others. I was also appointed as regional chair for Region 10. Then, came 2020 Presidential Election conversations conflict begun with Atty Vic Rodriguez came to the fore, inside and outside our newly created party changed radically, becoming a lot more political animosity. It puzzling to think of the reasons why such a shift in our views on neutrality and politics changed, but the answer is rather “simple” — war.
I have always known that I lived in a place where war could break out on any given day. It seemed to be a common understanding of all of my peers. This time, however, for the first time in our lives, my generation saw a prolonged political war with Liza and Inday, along with all of its repercussions just like our PDP LABAN did in the 90s: We saw what it is like to lose your land, your home, and most importantly, your loved ones because conflict of political war.
One could say the events of 2020 — and everything that followed — politicized our generation, but I would like to suggest a slightly different perspective: 2020 forced us to understand that our daily lives are politicized to such an extent that prohibits neutrality. Neutrality is no longer an option; no matter how much all of us would love to pretend politics do not involve us, the same politics in question shape our daily lives and the lives of the people around us.
I did not accept the offer to work under the helm of President B**gbong Marcos as Chief Investigator of PCGG for propriety sake (Delicadeza), I ran the campaign team of B**gbong-Sara (BBS) multi alliance group in Mindanao, I deserved that job offer, but the recent political climate now tougher than is going to be. It would be best for me not to accept it since I am one of the few who started the Social Media Duterte Warrior Group with Moca Joson and the late Jack Ramel, one of the few who indorsed Digong Duterte as our bet for Mindanao for the 2016 Presidential Election held in Apo View Hotel in Davao City.
For many of us, staying neutral simply meant allowing the flow of politics to subsume our beliefs and hopes for the future.
I am member of the powerful social media group called the “31 Million” as Group Expert, bound to protect and support President B**gbong Marcos and VP Sara. We all have a similar idea that political neutrality was not a choice we could make because the news we were reading on our android phone over social media was not something that we could ignore or pretend not to see. They were our loved ones who were not going to be alive after 2028, and in that place, there was no option not to care.
People uphold their political neutrality not because they don’t have access to resources that would allow them to formulate any opinions, but rather because they have the privilege of not being directly affected by political turbulence with DSS and Marcoses. Most people will not stay neutral when the shots are aim at their own houses. I am sure that when the political events that are merely news start to affect the large neutralist audience, none of them will stay neutral.
In my view, it is impossible to be truly politically neutral because our inactions can, and do, have effects of the same magnitude as our actions. Our current reality is that our lives are politicized to such an extent that it is irresponsible to believe that staying neutral is harmless. Instead, neutrality itself is an action that benefits a certain group. Now, how can you distinguish for being silent or the sake of peace, stay neutral and be labeled as enemy for being such
The next time you stay neutral when facing injustice and intrusive media violence, think about who it benefits, and how the course of history would have been different if neutralists chose to speak out against what was happening around them.
There is something of a first principles rule about interpreting any guidance or advice on proper conduct; always consider the perspective from which that guidance or advice comes, and the interests, not necessarily personal, which may provide part of the context.
Atty Vic and Atty Angeles has paid the price for what has been judged to be a breach of the requirement that in his crown entity role he should act in a way which is politically neutral. The judgement has been delivered primarily by the inner circle of the President and the country’s most senior Political Adviser. It’s not challenging the integrity of those people to observe that they have a vested interest in the way political neutrality is interpreted. It’s also worth noting that the rules around political neutrality have been promulgated by successive misters and senior public servants.
Consider what the rules might have been if written from the perspective of the interest of the public. As a citizen, my primary concern is that anyone in the public sector, when formulating or providing advice to decision-makers, does so without regard to any preference for one political party or another but instead focuses on what are the best interests of the public (and recognizes the diversity of that public, including the special place of Davao and Ilocos). That concern extends to the implementation of government (or local government) policies; that the way in which policies are implemented again is without regard to preference for any political party or politician, and with a focus on the best interests of the public. The reality is the decisions made by officials on how best to implement policy can often be at least as significant as the decisions made on the policy itself, a point very well made some years ago by the former Justice Secretary, now Solicitor General.
As a citizen I also have other interests; I want to see rigorous and fearless public debate on the policies which shape the society in which I live, and which determine the various rights, entitlements and responsibilities I and my fellow citizens share. I also want those policies to reflect principles of fairness, equity and access.
This means I want shared understandings about the nature of public debate, which maximize the opportunity for people with experience, understanding and a capacity for critical analysis to take part. Necessarily, when this concerns public policy, many of those people will in one way, or another be working within or closely involved with the public sector quite often at a senior level - this is especially the case with Crown entities because of the need to bring in skills in short supply within the career public sector itself. When we effectively prohibit those people from taking part in public debate, we seriously lessen the quality of debate, and the quality of the outcomes, which result.
It’s time to understand that criticizing the policy or indeed the decisions put forward by one or other of our political parties, and maintaining political neutrality, are quite different things. Calling out poor policy for what it is can and should be seen as a contribution to lifting the quality of policy-making within our different political parties. Too much of what comes out from politicians of all persuasions can look poorly researched and opportunistic, rather than carefully considered in terms of public rather than political benefit (I confess to a certain amount of idealism here). An expectation that they could expect policies to be scrutinized and publicly commented on as part of a robust process of public debate could and should improve the quality of policy-making.
It’s clear from the debate over Senator Bato latest public comments and social media attack, and for that matter Prof B**g Paurom’s, the concept of political neutrality can differ markedly depending on the perspective from which it is considered. It’s hard to escape a sense that the current public sector concept is overly protective of the interests of public officers under President B**gbong helm, and in all likelihood senior public servants, potentially sheltering them from at least some of the critical analysis to which they should be exposed.
It is likely also that as this approach has developed over a number of years, politicians in particular but also senior public servants have become less and less accustomed to accepting that people closely involved with the public sector have a valuable contribution to make to public debate through drawing on their experience to challenge government policy.
Doing so, even in a society accustomed to robust commentary, will always require the exercise of careful judgement including ideally the ability of commentators to draw a distinction between the policy they may be criticizing, and the individual, group or party putting it forward. It will also of course include a respect for confidentiality where the commentator holds information, which is not yet in the public domain.
The case for the current approach is couched in terms supportive of maintaining the government confidence required to underpin a permanent career based public service (often contrasted with experience in jurisdictions such as the US). There is merit in that principle but also an argument that the way in which it is increasingly applied comes at a high cost.
