What can we do?
In my previous column, I set myself up for the difficult task of identifying ways forward amid the current political dispensation, arguing that while we cannot lose track of structural violence that has held back our country, spaces and pockets of reform exist regardless of whoever is in charge.
One place to start is with the President’s campaign promises. As observers pointed out, he was actually quite progressive in some of his views on social issues—at least during the campaign—and his pronouncements can be invoked to advance some belated, badly needed change. Let me discuss a couple:
Divorce, for instance, remains illegal in the Philippines, notwithstanding the demonstrable harms of the status quo to families, especially women and children; harms that then candidate Bongbong Marcos recognized when he said that “there are cases where divorce is called for.” Candidate Marcos also spoke in favor of decriminalizing abortion in cases of rape and incest, and hinted at supporting gender equality and nondiscrimination laws.
He has since stayed largely silent on these issues, but his professed openness to them has contributed to a political climate in which lawmakers and government officials feel free(r) to advocate for them. A divorce bill is making unprecedented progress in Congress and I see no incentive for the President to expend political capital on an issue that a majority of Filipinos are already open to (53 percent of Filipinos support legalizing divorce, according to a 2017 Social Weather Stations survey)—especially if this openness will translate to advocacy and activism.
In the realm of drug policy, the President has acknowledged that there is a need to depart from Rodrigo Duterte’s punitive regime, and senators as diverse as Risa Hontiveros, Robinhood Padilla, Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa have called for drug “decriminalization” (albeit with very different interpretations of what the term means). This is admittedly a more uphill battle than even getting a divorce law, but there is certainly a more conducive environment for drug reforms today than in the time of Duterte.
From my conversations with government officials, I have also learned that many of them actually want some of these reforms but they cannot act motu proprio; they need the public behind them—especially if they’re up against political and economic powers that be. Lending our voices—as opposed to abstaining because we think it’s pointless—can tilt the discourse. Indeed, I cannot help but wonder if, had the outcry against the continued detention of Leila de Lima been louder and more sustained, she would have been free by now.
At the local level, there is also so much that is being done, including baby steps toward sustainability championed by the likes of Baguio City’s Benjamin Magalong and Iloilo City’s Jerry Treñas. Joy Belmonte’s righteous (and rightful) indignation against Willie Gonzalez, the former policeman who pulled a gun on a cyclist, is a reminder that local chief executives can sometimes take leadership in national issues, especially when Malacañang abdicates from that mandate.
What of ordinary citizens? In a recent conversation with University of the Philippines Los Baños academics Agnes Rola and Helen Dayo, they reminded me of the case of Majayjay, where residents repudiated their elected officials’ dubious water deal, back in 2014, by voting most of them out of office. Like the activism of the Sibuyanons that has successfully blocked mining on their island (at least for now) and the environmental advocacy of the Palawaños that’s at the heart of protecting what’s left of their island’s forests, the case of Majayjay shows that far from dead, civil society is very much alive, especially in issues that people actually care about. If there is any effort on the part of the opposition to learn from the 2022 elections and build a broader coalition, these issues must be at the core of building something that eschews fandoms and espouses a long-term political movement.
But for such spaces to be claimed, there must be recognition that electoral outcomes are not the only political outcomes that matter. Better officials are highly desirable (we can surely do without vexatious intelligence funds and power-tripping appointees), but better laws, better policies, better programs are better than nothing—and we do not need to wait for 2028 to fight for them.
We can already demand for these policies and programs. We can already support nongovernmental organizations and people’s organizations who are doing good work. We can support—both now and in 2025—local officials who show signs of independence and innovation. And we can support journalists, academics, and activists who facilitate these initiatives by exposing good and bad practices alike.
There must also be a recognition that claiming these admittedly limited spaces is impossible without issues-based (as opposed to personalities-based) coalition-building. If we can somehow muster the same enthusiasm for some key issues as for the candidates we fervently supported, we may yet achieve something; perhaps not victory, but at least, progress.
—————-
