Chrizo

Gilberto Cojuangco Teodoro Jr., Gibo in his campaign posters, is a pleasant man with a pleasant face. There is nothing of the wild-eyed messiah in him, none of Richard Gordon’s rambling self-praise or Joseph Estrada’s swaggering charm. In presidential forums, he waits quietly backstage, content to listen and smile and nod. He is exactly how he appears, a bright young lawyer born into the confident security of generations of landed gentry in Tarlac, where the Cojuangcos still clutch at the flooded sugarcane fields of Hacienda Luisita.

This is Gilbert Teodoro, presidential candidate and standard-bearer of the administration party, weighed down by eight years of the most unpopular administration since martial law.

He asks to be judged for himself, not for his affiliation to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. “I am different,” he says. “I am not the President. I am not Senator X, I am not Senator Y, I am not defense secretary this. I am Gilbert Teodoro, I am myself.”

This is the Gilbert Teodoro he would like us to see: Harvard graduate, three-term representative of the first district of Tarlac, youngest national defense secretary, the licensed pilot ranked colonel in the Philippine Air Force reserves, father of one and husband to the model-now-congresswoman the press has taken to calling “Nikki,” whose delighted face at her husband’s audience makes it into every photographer’s portfolio. Look at his track record, say his supports. Excellence and intelligence, say his slogans.

And yet as he distances himself from Ms Arroyo, he proves just how far the leash extends. Asked what among her policies he would like to change as president, he claims his opinion is a matter of national security. Asked if Ms Arroyo should be held accountable for any past actions, he says to make a judgment is to bow to public pressure. Asked if he will repay Ms Arroyo for her favors, he says it is against the nature of a Filipino to turn his back on the president who gave a 45-year-old man his break.

Such loyalty is understandable, even laudable, in a country where the state of party loyalties is demonstrated by the inclusion of Bong Revilla Jr. as guest candidate in four different parties. Teodoro would have us judge him for himself, and so we must, and to judge a man, it is necessary to make a judgment not just on his loyalty, but to whom he is loyal.

Some paint him the unfortunate inheritor of the Arroyo legacy, a good man forced to play for the wrong team but taking it like a soldier. It is easy to forget that the choice was his to accept the national defense post, to leave his old party for the perks of working for the most powerful woman in the country. This, after all, was the loyal former head of the Nationalist People’s Coalition House members, who left his party in July 2009 to swear loyalty to Lakas-Kampi-CMD and the administration.

He is not, as his running mate Edu Manzano claims, the only man among the presidential contenders with “an untarnished reputation” with “no potential issues involving his integrity and character.”

In a testimony by Buluan Vice-Mayor Esmael Mangudadatu, Teodoro had warned him repeatedly to curb his intention to challenge the Ampatuan clan for Maguindanao’s governorship. The Ampatuans, Teodoro said, were prone to violence. Mangudadatu risked his own life by choosing to throw the electoral gauntlet. “You know I love you,” said Teodoro to the Mangudadatu heir.

This is the same Teodoro who used the Ampatuans as a buffer against the MILF in his term in national defense. His was a choice to pander to the Ampatuans’ demands, choosing to dissuade Mangudadatus from their exercise of the legal and democratic right to run for public office, asking them not to offend the administration’s guard dogs in Maguindanao.

And still, when bodies were being scraped out of the foothills of Sitio Masalay, Teodoro bewailed how the massacre “had laid to waste” all the good he did as defense chief. It is odd that he feels himself exempt from responsibility. When asked why he did not disarm the Ampatuans when he could, he claims it would have been difficult to disarm them “given the circumstances,” with kidnappings and tension over the Bangsamoro treaty. Perhaps it can be argued disarmament would alienate the Palace’s greates allies in the south.

Immediately after the massacre, Teodoro led his party to expel members of the Ampatuan family from Lakas-Kampi-CMD.

“We believe they failed to exercise their moral and actual authority over their clan members, which is most probably the cause of the incident.”

As chief of the Department of National Defense, it was Teodoro who failed to exercise his own “moral and actual authority” over the Ampatuans, “which is most probably the cause of the incident.”

This is a man who says he will not bow to popular opinion. He will not speak against the President. He will not stoop to politics that plays to the crowd. On Nov. 26, he played to that crowd, when he and Edu Manzano flew to Maguindanao to welcome the grieving Esmael Mangudadatu into the fold of Lakas-Kampi-CMD.

“I will not allow warlords to be born of our party,” he says in an interview.

And so he stands beside Esmael Mangudadatu, victim of one of the grimmest crimes in Philippine history, now Teodoro’s anointed in Maguindanao. This is the same Mangudadatu whose family runs the neighboring Sultan Kudarat with their own private army. Esmael Mangudadatu himself has been accused of murder, multiple attempted murder and illegal possession of firearms. Asked if the Mangudadatu clan had been disarmed before Mangudadatu joined his party, Teodoro said he knew of no efforts for disarming Sultan Kudarat, that he would leave it to the judgment of the security forces.

That the Mangudadatus deserve justice and now serve government interests does not justify the blind eye turned on their private armies, their party inclusion a stamp of approval from the national government. It is a lesson the world learned with the Taliban in Afghanistan, with the Ampatuans in Maguindanao. Watchdogs trained to kill can break their leashes.

“My policy is no private armies,” says Teodoro. “I will not allow another monster to be created.”

Judge him for himself, he says, for what he is—his loyalty, his accountability, the excellence and intelligence by which he makes his choices and leads his men. Judge him on all this, and this is what will be left: a genial man sitting quietly in a waiting room, a pleasant man with a pleasant face, a man capable of sacrificing principle for popular opinion, taking little responsibility for his omissions, horse-trading lives for power. This is Gilbert Teodoro Jr., candidate for the presidency of the Republic of the Philippines.

- Patricia Evangelista

Everyone who runs for office has benefactors. Also, officials who aren’t performing are the ones who aren’t corrupt. If you look at the congressmen who are close to GMA, their districts are the ones that prosper from the economic development. That is why the anti-GMA sentiment is always only in Metro Manila. Visayas and Mindanao aren’t anti-GMA because she brought prosperity. Negros and Panay got new airports. There was lots of roads being built and the RORO. All this couldn’t have been possible if they weren’t paying some benefactors.

Now I don’t care if Gibo will repay his benefactors. He will bring development and prosperity to the rest of the country in the same way GMA did. That is why Visayas and Mindanao love him and will deliver the vote he needs to win the presidency - paid or not. Last time I checked, it was 500 pesos per vote in either Visayas or Mindanao. The people outside Manila are not blind to this, it’s real and it’s happening that’s why we still support Gibo!

Furthermore, modern society has modern forms of corruption. If you look at the US, they have tons of money being funneled into lobbying efforts and funding of different research orgs to sway public opinion. Look at what happened to the climate change data being manipulated for economic gains. All this is a form of corruption. Even Obama pays an economist to talk and to sway the healthcare bill his way without disclosing that that economist is being paid. Look at Korea and Japan, they have built huge industries because of the extremely corrupt link between the chaebols and keiretsus to the government. Heck, Samsung chairman was pardoned twice for crying out loud!

Bottomline for me, prosperity and development will come at the expense of corruption - be it straightforward or not.

- kevin, Gibo supporter.

But even granting that politics, as claimed by the Villar supporters, is behind this resolution to censure Villar, the fact is that there is that resolution, supported by evidence and up for senatorial judgment, that Villar and his camp want to kill, knowing that this could prove damaging to the campaign of Villar.

Why so, when the supporters of Villar, who claim to believe in his non-involvement in the C-5 road extension controversy, can and should debate on this issue and disprove the charges raised against Villar in the censure resolution?

If they have proof that Villar is squeaky clean and not guilty of unethical conduct and making the people suffer a loss of some P6 billion while enriching himself and his companies at the expense of the Filipino people, then disprove these charges, not kill the resolution.

But perhaps they can’t disprove these charges, which is why they fall back on claims of this censure resolution being all about bringing down Villar’s survey ratings.

And by trying to kill it, Villar may just have proved that he doesn’t have what it takes to be a president who will do right by the country and the people.

If it smells like a trapo, talks like a trapo, acts like a trapo….

From The-Jester-in-Exile’s blog.

Why We Should Draft Our Ballot Choices Now (or why we must debate and discuss until May 10, 2010)

(Personal disclaimer: any support or opposition to any candidate/ political party or movement during this campaign period will be written in this blog. I will not write any such matters on other advocacy blogs I guest on, such as Filipino Voices and BlogWatch. I will not disrespect these sites’ organizers and my colleagues in them by tainting advocacy with obvious partisanship.)

This morning, friends, I was able to catch most of the “Kilalanin” forum of DZBB, via GMANews.tv“‘s livestream of DZBB.

(Aside: may Rhea Santos na nga sila, may livestreaming pa. Kung may recording ng forum, ayna! Kalimutan na for life ang ibang network at maging kapusong totoo… basta di na rin natin maririnig ang boses ni Marian Rivera sa news.)

(Aside number two: if the network provides a recording of “Kilalanin” for public consumption and download, I will nominate GMA as the most public awareness-oriented network, in whatever forum that will give such an award. They are to my way of thinking already one up on ABS-CBNNews.com, with their “Leksyon sa Eleksyon” advocacy ads on primetime.)

Anyway, while listening to the radio broadcast online, I figured that through the efforts of both mainstream media and new media, the public is beginning to get enough data to be able to choose which candidates will have their little circles shaded on the ballots. As such, I am fairly convinced that now is now the time for all of us to get off the sidelines and start proclaiming our allegiances — tentative if need be.

It’s going to take balls to do this; see, anyone who says that he is supporting Candidate X or Politician Y is going to be a lightning rod for other people supporting other candidates. I know of quite a number of people who do not have any qualms about declaring their support for specific candidates, but I must say that most other people don’t have the cojones to do so.

Let me try to persuade you good folks to do so, however. So, why should we declare who are those we are for?

1. Full disclosure promotes discussion, debate, and dissent; through such fire, choices are refined, even modified to the correct choice. I’m not saying that the candidate you’re going to declare support for today should be the candidate you are going to vote for come May 10; everyone is free to change their mind, especially if we find out stuff about our candidates that will take away our approval of them.

Declaring who we are going to support is going to encourage our opposition to come by and tell us why we shouldn’t support our candidates; no doubt there is going to be a lot of mudslinging, but sifting the grain from the chaff among the attacks against our candidates we just might glean new insights that could very well change our minds. Furthermore, declaring who we are for will promote our candidates’ campaigns against those of the candidates we do not want elected; any mudslinging that happens will detract from the candidates doing the mudslinging. Finally, good and logical arguments that make us think twice about voting about our candidates or those of others will give us more data to make the right and informed choice come the second Monday of May this year.

Here’s a concrete f’rinstance: if Kevin Ray Chua (whom I greatly admire for his involvement in national issues out of his own free will, even before reaching voting age), who supports Mar Roxas’ vice-presidential bid and has been consistent in his declarations of support for the politician, turns around and declares on his blog that he has learned of matters that led him to change his mind, and shares with the rest of us these same matters, we can then weigh his reasons and weigh Roxas’s candidacy even better than on our own. On the other hand, if his support for Roxas remains unwavering despite the mudslinging against his candidate — and for that matter, against the young man — then we can have a better sense that Roxas is a candidate we should consider seriously, and have good reasons to reject those throwing all the mud.


2. Openly declared choices now promotes transparency during the campaign period, during the elections, and after. While it is likely that the online buzz is only a small indicator of actual popular sentiment, consistency in online buzz will help defeat any machinations designed to manufacture a victory for candidates who will not truly be the choice of the people. Visibility is key.

I believe that this will hold true between now and long afterwards; if a blogger declares that today he is supporting Candidate X, then after due reflection supports Politician Y because of new information that has helped change his mind, such declarations of affiliation and changes in affiliations will aid in our personal measures of how successful we have been in protecting our votes.

Not that there is much statistical value, but online measures will be useful in helping all of us gain a sense of whether or not our votes have been Garci’d to someone else. Think about this: a post saying “Today, I support [insert name here]” can be counted among others saying the same thing; we can measure these via online tools, similar to the means illustrated by blogger Jorge Cosgayon on his post Using Google’s tools to track the 2010 Elections. Following the trends from today up until E-Day will help fight spinmeisters who want to make us believe that their principals did no hanky-panky.


3. Corollary to #2, we will have more sources of data to validate survey results, whether commissioned by candidates themselves or by independent polling firms. If there’s a principle that engineers and law enforcers both agree with, separate data sets pointing to the same results (or in legal parlance, circumstantial evidence pointing to the same outcome) leads to more solid conclusions. With such disparate data sources indicating similar results will give us radar to penetrate through the fog of war (if you’ll pardon the reference to Command and Conquer), and will aid us in our efforts towards clean elections and promoting our candidates.

Let’s put it this way: if we can correlate all survey results from reputable firms (my former staff would say, “banggain natin ang data ng Pulse Asia saka SWS”), and measure them against informal sources (i.e., commissioned by politicians or made by them themselves) and against online buzz (taking due care to filter out obviously spurious data), it is unlikely that a candidate can catch up from too far behind without arousing valid suspicion.

Are these good enough reasons for us to begin to have the guts to start open declarations of support? I hope so. Elections are not carnivals we hold every three years or so; elections are important reaffirmations of the existence of our democracy, and thus deserve our utmost attention and care.

Therefore, folks, I urge you to write posts that begin with the title “Today, I Support [insert name here]”, or posts that begin with “Today, I Do NOT Support [insert name here]”. We can help our colleagues in the professional media along, and in the end help ourselves, by providing this sort of information to our readers. Let’s call these little blogswarms as the cloud computing efforts in support of Filipino democracy. Let’s write these posts for all the candidates we must have an interest in: national, local, party-list.

Today, friends, I commit to you that I will do exactly as I say. My next post will begin with such a title.

I hope — that is, I pray — that you guys consider doing the same.

If you have any idea who you’re going to vote for, playing coy now will only hurt your chosen candidate’s chances and whatever hopes you have for your country.  State it, state it clearly, state it loud.  Say why.  These coming elections will be historic.  Whether it will be historic for the worse, or historic for the better is up to us.