The Perils of Tribal Politics and Convenient Amnesia

by Jo Chanco

EDITOR THINKS

By any reasonable measure, Philippine politics has never suffered from a shortage of irony. Yet even by our notoriously elastic standards, the recent attempts by former Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano and his allies to recast themselves as victims of a supposedly monolithic “pro-Marcos” conspiracy deserve special recognition.

The spectacle would be amusing were it not so revealing.

Faced with mounting criticism over their defense of Vice President Sara Duterte and their attacks against perceived political adversaries, Cayetano and his political camp have increasingly resorted to a familiar rhetorical device: anyone who questions them, they imply, must be aligned with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

This is not merely intellectually lazy. It is an insult to thinking Filipinos.

Setting Up The Binary Narrative

Such binary framing reduces political discourse into a crude exercise of tribal identification. It presumes that every citizen must belong to one camp or another, as though independent judgment has become extinct in the Philippine political ecosystem.

The tactic is hardly new.

For years, the most ardent supporters of former President Rodrigo Duterte reflexively branded critics as “bayaran,” “oligarchs,” “destabilizers,” or agents of unnamed conspiracies. Facts became secondary to loyalty. Evidence became subordinate to narrative. Nuance was sacrificed at the altar of political devotion.

Today, some of the very personalities who benefited from that culture appear to be employing a variation of the same formula. The message is simple: if you criticize Sara Duterte, you must be pro-Marcos. If you question our claims, you must belong to the other side.

Reality, however, is considerably more complicated.

Accountability For All

Many Filipinos who scrutinize Vice President Duterte's confidential funds are equally critical of the Marcos administration's handling of public expenditures, governance issues, and alleged irregularities. Likewise, many who question President Marcos remain unconvinced by the explanations offered by Duterte allies.

Contrary to the simplistic worldview promoted by partisan operators, a significant portion of the electorate belongs to neither camp. They simply want accountability.

Unfortunately, accountability has become an endangered species in contemporary politics.

Forgotten Rhetoric

What makes the current narrative particularly remarkable is the historical amnesia that accompanies it. Let us revisit recent political history.

During the 2022 elections, Cayetano was hardly an outsider looking in. He was an enthusiastic participant in the coalition that propelled Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Sara Duterte to power. The coalition marketed itself as a vehicle for national unity, political stability, and continuity.

The branding was masterful. The execution proved electorally devastating to the opposition. The UniTeam coalition secured an overwhelming mandate. Consequently, it is difficult to understand how some of its principal architects can now distance themselves from the political consequences of that alliance.

Hypocrisy Unveiled

If critics today question the conduct of either Marcos or Duterte, it is worth remembering that many of those now complaining were among the coalition's most energetic salesmen.

Political responsibility cannot be selectively applied. One cannot claim credit for electoral victories while disclaiming ownership of the administration's subsequent controversies. That sounds more like opportunism than accountability.

Equally fascinating is the attempt to portray criticisms directed at Vice President Duterte as somehow disconnected from criticisms directed at the Marcos administration. In reality, many citizens view both controversies through the same lens: public accountability.

Questions surrounding confidential funds, budgetary allocations, infrastructure spending, and congressional appropriations are all manifestations of a broader concern regarding transparency and governance. Citizens who demand explanations regarding one controversy often demand explanations regarding another.

The public's concern is not ideological. It is fiscal.

Uni-Thieves

Filipinos are struggling with inflation, elevated food prices, transport costs, and stagnant purchasing power. Against this backdrop, every billion pesos spent by government invites legitimate scrutiny.

This should not surprise anyone. Taxpayers are effectively involuntary investors in the state. Naturally, they want to know how their money is being managed.

That expectation is neither partisan nor radical. It is fundamental to democratic governance.

Two Sides of The Same Coin Finger-pointing

The latest controversy involving the so-called “maleta boys” further illustrates the dangers of politicizing investigative processes.

At hearings and public forums, a group of witnesses has made explosive allegations concerning the alleged delivery of enormous sums of cash to politicians and public officials. Such claims, if proven, would represent one of the most consequential corruption scandals in modern Philippine history. Yet that crucial qualifier remains unavoidable: if proven.

In any society governed by the rule of law, allegations require substantiation. Accusations are not evidence. Assertions are not proof. Political theater is not due process. This distinction appears increasingly blurred in an era dominated by viral clips, social media algorithms, and outrage-driven narratives.

Observers have noted inconsistencies and discrepancies in several public testimonies that have emerged from these proceedings. Questions have been raised regarding timelines, identities, corroborating documents, technological details, and the absence of independently verifiable evidence. Critics have pointed to apparent contradictions involving dates, locations, individuals, and circumstances surrounding alleged cash deliveries. Others have questioned why certain allegations seem to shift over time, with names appearing and disappearing depending on the venue or audience.

These concerns do not automatically invalidate every claim. Neither do they automatically validate them. They simply underscore the necessity of rigorous investigation. Serious accusations require serious proof. That principle should be obvious.

Drama and Politics

Unfortunately, modern Philippine politics often rewards performance over substance. The hearing room increasingly resembles a theatrical stage. Witnesses become protagonists. Politicians become directors. Media personalities become narrators. The public becomes the audience. And truth, in the midst of all these, becomes collateral damage.

Public officials are certainly entitled to express appreciation toward individuals who come forward with information. Yet praise carries risks.

When investigations remain incomplete and allegations remain unverified, excessive endorsement may inadvertently create the perception of prejudgment. The appearance of impartiality is often as important as impartiality itself. This is especially true in matters involving potential criminal liability.

Institutions derive legitimacy not merely from outcomes but from process. Once confidence in the process erodes, public trust follows.

The 'Not With Us, Must Be Against Us' Mentality

The broader lesson extends beyond any single politician. Philippine democracy is increasingly afflicted by a debilitating condition: factional absolutism.

Every issue becomes tribal. Every controversy becomes partisan. Every criticism becomes evidence of disloyalty. This dynamic impoverishes public discourse. It encourages citizens to evaluate information not according to merit but according to political origin.

If a claim benefits one's preferred camp, it is embraced. If it harms one's preferred camp, it is dismissed. Facts become negotiable. Consistency becomes optional.Hypocrisy becomes routine. The result is a governance environment characterized by selective outrage.

Supporters condemn corruption—unless their allies are accused. They champion transparency—unless transparency becomes inconvenient. They celebrate accountability—unless accountability approaches their own political neighborhood.

Such behavior is hardly confined to one faction. It infects virtually every major political camp. The Marcos camp does it. The Duterte camp does it. Opposition factions sometimes do it as well. The pathology is systemic.

Resetting the Moral Compass

What Filipinos desperately need is a return to principle-based politics. The standard should be universal. If allegations against Vice President Duterte deserve investigation, then allegations involving Marcos allies deserve investigation too. If allegations involving Marcos allies warrant scrutiny, then accusations directed at Duterte allies should receive the same treatment.

No exemptions. No sacred cows. No political discounts.

The Constitution does not distinguish between favored and unfavored personalities. Neither should the public. Ultimately, the greatest danger posed by the current climate is not corruption itself. Corruption has always existed.

The greater danger is the normalization of double standards. When citizens lose confidence that institutions can operate independently of political factions, cynicism flourishes. When cynicism flourishes, democratic legitimacy weakens. And when legitimacy weakens, populists, demagogues, and opportunists inevitably rush to fill the vacuum.

That is why the central question facing the nation is not whether one is pro-Marcos or pro-Duterte. The question is whether one remains pro-accountability. That distinction matters.

Political Maturity

A mature democracy cannot survive on personality cults. It cannot thrive on partisan mythology. It cannot progress through perpetual political vendettas disguised as governance.

The country's future depends on institutions that function regardless of who occupies Malacañang, the Vice President's Office, Congress, or the Senate. It depends on citizens capable of evaluating evidence without partisan blinders. And it depends on leaders willing to submit themselves to the same standards they demand of their opponents.

Until then, the cycle will continue. Politicians will accuse. Allies will defend. Opponents will attack. Investigations will become spectacles. The truth will become negotiable. And ordinary Filipinos—already burdened by inflation, economic uncertainty, and declining trust in public institutions—will once again pay the price.

Robinhood Padilla, sometimes dubbed the most uneducated of the current roster of Philippine senators, said what could be the most on-point conclusion to be had from all this. He bluntly declared, "Political maturity, unfortunately, is what we lack".

It may be the most tragic irony of all, but he is right.