SARA'S ROAD TO 2028: A "CANNIBALIZATION" DILEMMA

Picture you’re walking down a supermarket aisle, faced with two seemingly identical products from the same brand – one of them a fresh new release, and the other a familiar favorite. The problem? There’s barely a difference between them. This was the fate of PepsiCo’s Crystal Pepsi, a transparent version of the iconic Pepsi. Despite being marketed as a bold, innovative new product, it lacked clear differentiation from its predecessor.

What happened?

Crystal Pepsi’s launch cannibalized Pepsi’s existing market share, ultimately leading to its quick disappearance from the shelves. Similarly, Coca-Cola’s Diet Coke became a classic example of product cannibalization, as the low-caloric version didn’t bring enough uniqueness to justify itself apart from the flagship Coca-Cola, ultimately reducing the market for both.

In politics, a similar scenario is unfolding for Sara Duterte as she lays the groundwork for the 2028 presidential election. She inherits much of the political legacy that already defines the Marcos-Duterte alliance but without a clear, compelling differentiation from President Bongbong Marcos, her erstwhile partner. Much like the floundering product lines of Crystal Pepsi and Diet Coke, Sara’s political brand risks cannibalizing the same voter base she hopes to inherit. Bongbong and Sara come from the same now-defunct UniTeam, with overlapping ideologies and promises (remember P20 per kilo rice), leaving voters confused and hesitant. Without a clear identity, Sara faces the same fate as many ill-fated products that failed due to lack of distinction – overshadowed by the existing brand she shares with Bongbong.

The Marketing “Cannibalization” Metaphor in Political Context

In marketing, cannibalization refers to the phenomenon: a new product introduced by a company competes with and reduces the sales of its existing products. It’s a tricky situation – the goal is often to introduce new offerings to grow the brand. Without proper differentiation, the product could end up simply eating into the sales of the old one, resulting in a net loss for the company.

Now let’s apply this metaphor to politics. Sara represents the new product; Bongbong, the existing one. Both come from the same political brand – UniTeam – and thus share a lot of the same attributes: populist rhetoric, pro-Duterte and pro-Marcos values, and a promise to continue the legacies of their respective families. The challenge here is clear: while Sara aspires to succeed Bongbong in 2028, the lack of distinct political differentiation between them could lead to confusion and voter cannibalization, where both leaders lose potential support.

Defunct UniTeam

Lack of Clear Differentiation: The Problem of Being Part of the Same Brand

Sara’s dilemma begins with the fact that she is part and parcel of the same political alliance that brought her to prominence: UniTeam. While the alliance was instrumental in securing both her and Bongbong’s wins in 2022, it has also tied her to his legacy and platform. As a result, she finds herself struggling to establish a distinct identity. Sara, despite her own personal and political strengths, is inevitably associated with her father’s bloody legacy and the Marcos family’s controversial history. This overlap in political identity makes it difficult for her to carve out a space of her own.

Key Attributes that Overlap

When we talk about the overlap, it’s not just about shared political views – it’s the entire package: the promises of continuity in governance, the appeal to loyal Duterte supporters, and the overlapping electoral bases. These similarities create a situation where voters might see no need to choose one. Why pick Sara when she embodies the same platform and appeal as Bongbong? Without a clear shift in message, Sara risks being viewed as just another iteration of the same UniTeam product – someone who doesn’t offer anything distinctly different.

Consequences of a Lack of Differentiation

Voter Confusion. Imagine a critical-thinking voter sitting at the ballot box, trying to decide between Sara and Bongbong’s anointed successor (AS). If both are seen like two peas in a pod, how will voters decide who to support? The overlap .in their political identities makes it unclear to the electorate what separates the two candidates. This ambiguity can lead to frustration, as voters struggle to understand the unique qualities of each candidate, causing a possible delay in decision-making, or, worse, apathy toward the election.

Reduced Loyalty. When voters cannot differentiate between the candidates, their loyalty to both may diminish. This is especially problematic in our political landscape where loyalty to a particular family – whether the Marcoses or the Dutertes – often dictates voting patterns. If voters are unsure of how Sara differs from Bongbong’s AS, they may begin to feel less attached to both candidates. This erosion of loyalty opens the door to other presidential hopefuls who might provide clearer differentiation and more compelling narratives. Voters may start looking elsewhere for candidates who promise something truly new or different, leading to a shift in support away from Sara and Bongbong’s AS.

Votes Cannibalization. Without distinct identities, Sara and Bongbong’s AS will cannibalize each other’s voter base. The danger here is that voters who are loyal to UniTeam then may find it difficult to decide between the two, resulting in split votes between them. The situation would benefit candidates outside the Marcos-Duterte alliance who offer a clearer contrast. For example, if the electorate cannot discern a tangible reason to choose Sara over Bongbong’s AS (or vice versa), both may see their votes diluted, leading to a net loss. This “cannibalization” effect could diminish their overall strength, weakening both candidates’ chances of winning in 2028.

Potential Solutions for Sara’s Campaign Strategy

To avoid the perils of political cannibalization, Sara needs to find ways to differentiate herself from Bongbong - better late than never.

Strategic Differentiation. Sara could emphasize policies or leadership qualities that set her apart.  Perhaps she can lean into a more youthful, dynamic vision for the country, positioning herself as someone capable of bringing generational change while still respecting her father’s legacy.

Building a Distinct Political Brand. It will be crucial to create a brand that distinguishes her from Bongbong. Sara could present herself as more independent, offering fresh perspectives on issues. By signaling that she’s not just a continuation of Bongbong’s leadership but a fresh face with her agenda, she could capture the electorate seeking change.

Unless her looming impeachment doesn’t eat her alive, Sara may struggle to survive until the bitter end. Much like the short-lived Crystal Pepsi, it could result in her swift disappearance from the Philippine political arena.

Content & editing put together in collaboration with ChatGPT

Head photo courtesy of iStock

Crystal Pepsi collage photos courtesy of You Tube, Ranker, Pepsi Crystal, & Thrillist

Still photos courtesy of Jiji Press, Facebook, Depositphotos, & Pinterest

"IT WILL END BADLY": POPE FRANCIS WARNS AGAINST TRUMP'S MASS DEPORTATIONS

 

In a world where the plight of the vulnerable often goes unheard, the voices of those like Blanca Figueroa, a Guatemalan asylum seeker, pierce through the silence. The family's breadwinner and the injured husband's caregiver, Blanca confides, “He worries a lot that if they deport me, he would not be able to manage the house and the boys,” revealing the profound fear of separation from her family.

Meanwhile, Hannah Flamm of the International Refugee Assistance Project raises alarms about the expedited removal process, "You have no due process. You do not see an immigration judge. You can be taken into custody and deported in hours or days. The only way to get out of this fast-track deportation process is by establishing that you are afraid to go back to your country and you pass a fear screening."

Even the testimonies of anonymous migrants caught in the web of indiscriminate enforcement echo the desperate uncertainty felt by many. “I was arrested and detained, but due to space constraints and court orders, I was released back into the U.S. on a monitoring program.” This migrant, like many others, faced the uncertainty and fear of being picked up by police indiscriminately or for minor infractions like driving without a license.

"No one gets a pass."

In the midst of this turmoil, Pope Francis’ rebuke of the Trump administration’s mass deportation policies resonates with a powerful warning: such actions “will end badly.” The Pope’s call for compassion challenges the Trump administration to look beyond legal status and recognize the inherent dignity of every human being, urging a profound reevaluation of the American moral compass.

A month ago, Pope Francis called Trump’s plans for mass deportations a “disgrace.” This comes nearly a decade after he labeled Trump “not Christian” for wanting to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border. The Pope weighed in on Trump’s pledges, emphasizing the moral implications of such actions.

In his letter to the American bishops, Pope Francis expressed his deep concerns regarding the treatment of migrants, drawing parallels with biblical narratives. He stated:

“The journey from slavery to freedom that the People of Israel traveled, as narrated in the Book of Exodus, invites us to look at the reality of our time, so clearly marked by the phenomenon of migration, as a decisive moment in history to reaffirm not only our faith in a God who is always close, incarnate, migrant and refugee but also the infinite and transcendent dignity of every human person.”

The Exodus in the Bible

Pope Francis further elaborated:

“The Son of God, in becoming man, also chose to live the drama of immigration … The family of Nazareth in exile, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, emigrates to Egypt and refugees there to escape the wrath of an ungodly king, they are the model, the example, and the consolation of emigrants and pilgrims of every age and country, of all refugees of every condition who, beset by persecution or necessity, are forced to leave their homeland, beloved family, and dear friends for foreign lands.”

Despite the Vatican being a city-state surrounded by walls built in the 9th century against Saracen raiders, U.S. border czar Tom Homan immediately countered that the Pope should leave border enforcement to his office.

However, Pope Francis aligns with the historical American vision articulated by the Founding Fathers. The American dollar bill boldly proclaims this vision, as described in Michael Gellert’s book The Fate of America: An Inquiry into National Character.

The U.S. One Dollar Bill

“The seal of the United States… equivalent of what a personal signature to the individual; it is a symbol of identity. As such, the Great Seal is alpha and omega of American symbols: it extols the basic premises and goals with which the nation was conceived. Its imagery, the design of which in the initial stages involved the efforts of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams, speaks to the heart of the American enterprise. It tells how both the Founding Fathers and the Puritans before them viewed America and what they had in mind for it.”

The American Bald Eagle, universally associated with liberty and democracy, represents not only the idea of natural rights, that all men are equal, but also the norms of political organization that keep this idea alive and strong. With its escutcheon or shield, the eagle signifies the American scheme for the practice and preservation of democracy. This system checks the tendency toward inordinate power by a few while balancing it with the confusion of the multitude, ensuring freedom by denying any source of prestige or authority immunity from criticism.

In its mouth, the eagle holds a scroll inscribed with E Pluribus Unum, meaning “Out of many, one.” This motto alludes to the union of the thirteen colonies into one nation and points to the ideal of the brotherhood of man, conveyed in the biblical phrase, “Ye are brethren,” central to both the Puritans and Jeffersonian visions for America.

Jefferson, in his secularized version of the gospel of Jesus, emphasized moral teachings. He regarded them as “pure and perfect” compared to those of the most correct philosophers. Jefferson accepted Christianity on humanitarian, not theological, grounds identifying as a “real Christian” and an adherent to Jesus’ morality. When he called himself a Christian – “a real Christian” – he meant that he was an adherent of the morality of Jesus. Adams echoed this sentiment across, emphasizing that Christian morality brings the principle of loving one’s neighbor to the knowledge and veneration of the entire state.

The Founding Fathers believed that nations flourish or fall based on their moral character, advocating for an upright, not necessarily Christian, nation. The reverse side of the seal, the Pyramid, represents the significance of strength and durability in the greater scheme of things. The scroll the nation at the pyramid’s base, inscribed with Novus Ordo Seclorum, or “New Order of the Ages” announced the beginning of a new era in which democracy and the republican form of government aimed to establish the brotherhood of man.

Pope Francis

Pope Francis, reinforcing this vision, stated:

“The true ordo amoris that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the Good Samaritan (cf. Lk 10:25-37), that is, by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity [brotherhood of man] open to all, without exception.”

One brief but striking reader’s reaction to Pope Francis’ rebuke over mass deportation was: “You are a little late… but please continue to speak up!” Indeed, it’s a wake-up call for the American nation, especially for those, as another one commented, “being kicked in the gut.”

Pope Francis exhorted us all men and women of goodwill “not to give in to narratives that discriminate against and cause unnecessary suffering to our migrant and refugee brothers and sisters,” and thus “take a step forward in the construction of a society that is more fraternal, inclusive, and respectful of the dignity of all.”

Content & editing put together in collaboration with Microsoft Bing AI-powered Co-pilot

Head photo courtesy of Adobe Stock

Still photos courtesy of PBS News, Laidlaw College, Shutterstock, National Catholic Register, & Pin page

ELON MUSK'S DOGE DILEMMA: FROM A CLASSROOM WITH A VIEW

 

PROF JAY: Good morning, everyone! Today we’ll discuss current world events. Since Val will celebrate his birthday on Valentine’s Day, I’m giving him the special favor of picking the headline for our discussion.

VAL: Thank you, Sir. The headline: "Elon Musk’s 19-year-old DOGE lieutenant sparks outrage after taking a new role at the State Department."

Latest headlines on Elon Musk's "Big Balls"

PROF JAY: Hmm. (writing on the board the headline and nodding) That’s quite interesting. What do we have in our management toolbox, James, to tackle the issue in this headline?

JAMES: I suggest the SWOT analysis, Sir. It’s a strategic tool to identify and evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats involved in an organizational transformation, such as the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

PROF JAY: (writing on the blackboard SWOT in bold letters) Very good.  Who wants to start the ball rolling? Philip?

PHILIP: I’ll start with strengths. Elon Musk as DOGE's head is a big advantage. He’s known for being innovative and ambitious, which can drive positive change. His focus on efficiency is also crucial, aiming to cut wasteful spending and streamline operations. Plus, his technological expertise means he can leverage cutting-edge solutions to modernize government processes.

PROF JAY: (starting to scribble a bulleted list on the blackboard) Excellent points. So, we have strong leadership, a focus on efficiency, and technological expertise. Matt, what about weaknesses?

MATT: One major weakness is the controversial leadership. Musk’s outspoken nature and business interests can lead to conflicts of interest. A specific example: Tesla. It received billions of dollars in government contracts over the past decade. As DOGE's head, Musk has access to government spending plans and contracts which could influence decisions benefitting Tesla.

PETER: Moreover, DOGE has faced multiple lawsuits and scrutiny regarding its authority and actions. For example, DOGE's attempt to access personal data from the U.S. Treasury systems brought about a lawsuit on data breach claimed to be the largest in American history.

PROF JAY: (adding more bulleted items to the list) Interesting. So, controversial leadership and legal challenges are potential weaknesses. Mary, what opportunities do we see?

MARY: DOGE gets the chance to gain public support by showing tangible results in reducing government waste. Technological advancements can be leveraged by furthering streamlined operations. And if successful, DOGE could influence broader policy changes that promote efficiency and reduce bureaucracy.

PROF JAY: (writing on the blackboard the added inputs) Good insights. Public support, technological advancements, and policy changes are promising opportunities. Now, John, what about threats?

JOHN: Political opposition is a big threat, as not everyone agrees with DOGE’s methods. The economic impact of cutting federal spending could also have unintended consequences. Lastly, negative public perception could undermine DOGE’s efforts if people don’t trust their actions.

PROF JAY: (closing out the list on the blackboard) Excellent. So, political opposition, economic impact, and public perception are key threats. Let’s now project the road ahead for DOGE. Andrew, how do we see the good, the bad, and the ugly scenarios?

ANDREW: In a good scenario, DOGE successfully navigates legal challenges and gains public support by delivering tangible results. This builds momentum for larger changes. In a bad scenario, DOGE faces legal battles and political opposition, limiting its progress. In the ugly scenario, DOGE collapses under the pressure of legal, political, and social challenges, leading to its eventual abandonment.

PROF JAY: (writing the three scenarios on the blackboard - succeeds, struggles,  collapses - underlining them.) Great summary. Simon, what do you think about starting with smaller, doable, achievable projects by DOGE to gain “small wins” instead of “big Trumpian grandeurs”?

SIMON: That makes a lot of sense. Starting with smaller projects can build credibility and public support, which can be essential for tackling larger challenges later on.

PROF JAY: Absolutely. Small wins can create positive stories and gradually build trust. Now, let’s touch on a specific issue mentioned in the headline: the case of the 19-year-old techie known as “Big Balls.” Martha, (writing the name Edward Coristine on the margin of the blackboard) could you elaborate on this character?

MARTHA: Coristine’s appointment has sparked controversy due to his past actions and status as one of Musk’s techie outsiders. He was previously fired from an internship at Path Network for leaking sensitive information. Despite this, he was appointed as a senior adviser in the State Department, which has raised concerns about his qualifications and the potential risks of his involvement.

PROF JAY: (Drawing an arrow piercing DOGE in the headline) Peter, how does this situation affect the people inside the organization?

PETER: It can tarnish the self-image of existing employees. They might feel overlooked and undervalued, leading to decreased morale and motivation. Employees working hard within the organization could see the appointment of a controversial outsider as a sign that their efforts are not being recognized.

PROF JAY: Exactly. A sense of ownership and respect is crucial in any organization. By not fostering a culture of trust and recognition, DOGE risks undermining the dedication and contributions of its workforce. This can lead to a lack of engagement and productivity.

VAL: So, DOGE needs to balance bringing in fresh talents with respecting and valuing the contribution of existing employees. This way, they can maintain a motivated and cohesive workforce.

PROF JAY: Well said, everyone. I have to admit, when I chose Val, our birthday celebrant, to pick a headline for our discussion, I expected something related to Valentine’s Day. Say, "Candlelit Disaster: Romantic Dinner Sets Off Fire Alarm." Just kidding. (smiling)

JAMES: Sir, Val's headline is somewhat related to Valentine’s Day – but in reverse way.

PROF JAY: (expressing surprise) Really, in what manner?

MARY: Not love, but the absence of it. For lack of a better word, it appears to be contempt. By the way, Valentine of Rome was a priest who was, ironically, martyred.

MARTHA: Indeed, Sir. Contempt doesn’t just kill productive relationships; it also damages people’s self-esteem. Organizational transformation, such as DOGE's goal, should never convey the impression of contempt.

JOHN: People, generally, don’t dislike work. If you help them understand shared goals, they’ll drive themselves to achieve incredible excellence.

PROF JAY: (opening his laptop, then hitting the keys) Your final thoughts remind me of a rare note in my old files by the late Lt. Gen. Melvin Zais, commanding general of the U.S. Army’s 101st Airborne. The straightforward essence is so soul-stirring that it urges me to share it with you.

“You cannot expect a soldier to be a proud soldier if you humiliate him. You cannot expect him to be brave if you abuse and cow him. You cannot expect him to be strong if you break him. You cannot ask for respect and obedience and willingness to assault… if your soldier has not been treated with respect and dignity which fosters unit esprit and personal pride.

“The line between firmness and harshness, between strong leadership and bullying, between discipline and chicken, is a fine line. It is difficult to define, but those of us who are professionals, who have also accepted a career as a leader of men, must find that line. It is because judgment and concern for people and human relations are involved in leadership that only men can lead, and not computers.

“I enjoin you to be ever alert to the pitfalls of too much authority. Beware that you do not fall into the category of the little man, with a little job, with a big head. In essence, be considerate, treat your subordinates right, and they will literally die for you.”

PROF JAY: (folding down his laptop) Thank you for the lively discussion, everyone. This has been a great example of using SWOT analysis in understanding and planning for complex situations like DOGE. Let’s strive to transform organizations that recognize and value the people who do the work.

Good day, everyone!

Content & editing put together in collaboration with Microsoft Bing AI-powered Co-pilot

A handful of principles on “people,” “small wins,” and “ownership,” taken from the book A Passion for Excellence: The Leadership Difference by Tom Peters and Nancy Austin

Head collage photos courtesy of The Daily Beast, iStock, & Canva

Still photos and backgrounds courtesy of Adobe Stock, Wallpaper Home, Freepik, & A-Z Quotes

JUSTICE IN LIMBO: HIGH STAKES OF TIMELY DECISION

 

In the convoluted halls of justice, where every tick of the clock carries the weight of countless lives, one truth remains paramount: Justice delayed is justice denied. Each moment justice stalls, hope diminishes, and the cries for equity risk fading into whispers unheard. In this realm, prompt and decisive action isn’t just a procedural necessity – it’s a moral duty.

Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) punished a judge who was found guilty of simple misconduct and neglect of duty in the Leila De Lima case. But what were the adverse consequences of an offense deemed so simple that it warranted only a P36,000 fine and a stern warning to the erring judge? It caused delays in De Lima’s bail petition, prolonging her detention in jail for nearly two and a half years.

"Supreme Court punishes judge over delay in De Lima case" - Rappler February 3, 2025 headline

Here’s a glimpse into De Lima’s life in detention, excerpted from Rappler’s De Lima: One Year of Living and Surviving in Jail:

“In her small cell, [Senator Leila De Lima] has a single bed, a stand fan, a few pieces of monobloc chairs, 5-small plastic boxes for her clothes, a full-length mirror, a 5-layer bookshelf, a tiny foldable side table, a desk filled with documents and books, hardly giving her space to move, and a few more boxes of books.

“She has a microwave oven, too – so far, the only electronic appliance she’s allowed. She had requested that her staff bring her home-cooked food daily for safety reasons.

“The senator has a small ice chest, which her staff fills with store-bought ice daily.

“In a tiny bathroom, a toilet bowl, a pail of water, and a dipper are the only notable fixtures.

“She usually starts her day between 5 and 5:30 AM by praying and reading the Gospel. De Lima said she has become a ‘serious’ Bible reader.”

The crux of her being in jail: “De Lima, you are finished. Tapos ka na.” Those were President Duterte’s spine-chilling words then. As Chair of the Commission on Human Rights, De Lima spearheaded the investigation of extrajudicial killings carried out by the so-called Duterte Death Squad in Davao, where Duterte held dominion as mayor for more than two decades.

Undoubtedly, such a bold investigation got on Duterte’s nerves. Not only did he put her in jail but also seek to cut her dignity down to size: “She looks nice… Fighter talaga,” nastily referring to deepfake sex videos then.

"Duterte kay De Lima: TAPOS KA NA" - Balita/Manila Bulletin August 25, 2016 headline

To give credit where it’s due, I commend our SC justices for their recent judgment - better late than never - after having been scared stiff back when Duterte fear factor ran the judicial show.  However, I could have hero-worshipped them had they seized the moment to undertake an extraordinary job that would have immortalized their names in the annals of Philippine history.

I’m speaking of a missed opportunity to be great on one particular monumental case in the past: the disqualification case versus Bongbong Marcos during the 2022 presidential election.

Let’s revisit this case and its tacit recourse, articulated by two former justices of the Supreme Court making a case for the disqualification of Bongbong Marcos’ candidacy during the presidential election:

“Bongbong Marcos is still a certified convict who is disqualified to run for president of the Philippines, to vote, and to participate in any election of the country.” - Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio

“If a candidate’s COC is cancelled, he [Marcos Jr.] cannot be substituted because cancellation legally means that the certificate of candidacy (COC) was void from the very beginning and deemed never to have existed. Thus, the votes cast for the erstwhile candidate [Marcos Jr.] would be considered “stray” and not be counted. The candidate getting the highest number of votes [VP Leni], excluding the stray votes, would be declared the winner.” – Former Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban

In basketball lingo, our nation's SC missed the last two-minute buzzer beater slam dunk. As the dry and trite line goes: "The rest is history."

In retrospect, I wrote in my May 27, 2022, ATABAY article Democracy = Numbers + Rule of Law about a similar dilemma faced by the Indian government. Here’s an excerpt from the Indian Supreme Court ruling summation:

“The Constitution prevails over the will of the people [election results]. The will of the people as expressed through the majority party PREVAILS ONLY IF IT IS IN ACCORD WITH THE CONSTITUTION.”

Pratik Patnik, a lawyer and constitutionalist spelled out the essence of such a bold ruling in his country:

“The [Supreme] Court… struck some sacred chords resulting in one of the best tunes to have come out of its hallowed halls.

“[D]emocracy should be distinguished from majoritarianism. One of the lesser-known facets (unfortunately) of democracy is that it is not only the rule of the majority but also has within its folds one of the most sacred epithets known to humankind – The Rule of Law."

Democracy = Numbers + Rule of Law

“If there is no rule of law circumscribing the numbers in that equation, what we are left with is no more than the rule of the mob. History is peppered with examples of the majority going horribly wrong. Hitler was ‘elected’.”

Food for Thought: Is the infamous 32 million votes (minus the rule of law since Bongbong Marcos should have been disqualified) the rule of the mob?

Looking back, the day after the 2022 presidential election, many raised questions to search for answers to the seeming divinely cued constant 68:32 ratio between the votes for Bongbong Marcos and VP Leni - showing an almost perfect linear equation - absolutely incredible in any election.

(Myriad proofs of improbability have been expounded later by Eliseo Rio, Jr. and his TNT, as published in Jarius Bondoc’s series of columns in Philstar.)

But the gods of Padre Faura appeared to have legally kept their distance from the vital issue, probably, due to the highly technical nature of the issue. I could still recall one mocking comment against the opposition coming from the now defunct UniTeam that surfaced amid the widespread skepticism during the heat of the Presidential election: “O, ano naman ang magawa nyo?"

Today, our nation’s Supreme Court faces another monumental dilemma. A petition has been filed for SC to declare the 2025 General Appropriations Act (“most corrupt national budget”) as unconstitutional. The petition, filed by the Duterte minions, alleges several constitutional violations: blank items in the bicameral conference committee report, failure to allocate mandatory funding for Philhealth, and prioritizing non-education-related agencies over the education sector.

Remember the saying “what goes around, comes around”? Well, in the context of the Pinoy popular saying: “Weather weather lang,” somehow, I can only imagine someone remarking somewhere about this petition: “O, ano naman ang magawa nyo?”

So sad. Onli in di Pilipins.

Content & editing put together in collaboration with Bing AI-powered Co-pilot

Head collage photo courtesy of Freelancer and Canva

Other still photos courtesy of Rappler, Manila Bulletin, iStock, and HopeQure