FREEZE THE BALL: THE GAME PLAN BEHIND IMPEACHMENT DELAY

There are times when art hits too close to home – when fiction reaches out, grabs you by the collar, and forces you to look straight into the mirror of real life. That happened to me one night when I took a little break from my writing and stumbled on a 1996 film on Netflix titled Eye for an Eye. 

I wasn’t drawn in by the title, to be honest, but by the names Sally Field and Kiefer Sutherland – both actors I deeply admired for their capacity to embody roles that feel painfully real.

What I didn’t expect was for the movie to dig its nails into me from the very first scene – and then never let go.

Imagine the worst moment of your life: it comes not with a knock at the door but through your cell phone – live, unfiltered, unforgiving.

That’s exactly how the movie opens.

It raises the curtain with every parent’s worst nightmare. Karen played with aching authenticity by Sally Field, is stuck in traffic, chatting with her teenage daughter on the phone. Then something shifts. Her daughter’s voice breaks. Confusion gives way to terror. Karen, powerless on the other end of the line, hears in real time the brutal attack on her child – and she can do nothing. That scene hits like a punch to the chest. It’s a masterclass in tension, but also in heartbreak.

And then there’s Kiefer Sutherland. He plays Robert Doob – the killer. And it’s not just his creepiness that unsettles; it’s his calm. He isn’t the exaggerated, over-the-top villain. He’s cold, methodical, and terrifyingly believable. That, I think, is what makes him so disturbing.

Without spoiling the whole film, let me say this: the movie’s power lies in one brutally simple question – What would you do if justice failed you?

After the murder of Karen’s daughter, the evidence seems airtight. The semen found at the scene matches Doob’s DNA. A conviction feels certain. But then comes the twist – not of the story, but of the law. The defense argues the DNA sample was obtained improperly. The judge agrees. That key piece of evidence? Tossed. The case collapses. And Doob walks.

Not because he’s innocent – but because someone didn’t follow proper legal procedure.

It’s a gut-punch moment. The film doesn’t sensationalize it; it just holds up a mirror to a painful reality: the justice system, meant to uphold truth, can be derailed by its own rules. Rules that are there for good reason – due process exists to protect the rights of the accused – but sometimes, those very rules become loopholes that let the guilty go free.

That’s when the movie stopped feeling like fiction.

Watching the movie’s slow burn of outrage, I couldn’t help but think of something closer to home: the current impeachment of VP Sara Duterte.

Congresswoman-elect Leila de Lima said it plainly:

“To abandon the process is to abandon the people who still believe in the promise of justice. It tells every Filipino that those in power are beyond reach and that accountability is optional.”

She’s right. And sadly, that’s the tune being played again.

Some say the Senate has no time left to handle the impeachment – the current term ends June 30. Others hint that maybe it’s not time that’s lacking, but political will. Senate President Escudero, critics argue, has been employing delaying tactics, like a playing coach clinging to an outdated freeze the ball.

Having played basketball in my younger years, I can’t help but find the freeze the ball metaphor especially fitting – almost like a perfect slam dunk – in the context of Sara’s impeachment process. It brings back memories of those intense final seconds on the hard court when, instead of taking the shot, players would dribble in place, running down the clock to protect a narrow lead.

That old tactic was eventually banned because it drained the spirit of the game and robbed fans of the contest they came to see. And yet, here we are, watching something eerily similar play out in the political arena.

With the impeachment hanging in the balance, the deliberate delays feel less like due diligence and more like a strategic stalling move – one that sidesteps action and, in the process, cheats the public of the fair fight they deserve.

Senate Minority Leader Koko Pimentel

The irony? While basketball now punishes that stalling, politics still seems to reward it.

Even more frustrating, delaying VP Sara’s impeachment trial may directly violate Senate rules, which state that impeachment proceedings take precedence over all legislative matters. Minority Leader Koko Pimentel has already pointed this out – but when rules bend to politics, who’s keeping score?

It brings to mind another political flashpoint burned into our national memory: the second envelope in President Estrada’s impeachment trial - the one that senators voted not to open. The one that supposedly held documents linking Estrada to P1.2 billion in hidden accounts under the alias Jose Velarde. The envelope wasn’t part of the original complaint, they said - a technicality. But the public saw through it – and it sparked outrage that helped bring down a presidency.

I still remember Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s reflection years later.

“At that time, I wanted to apply the rules of court technically… I was among those demonized because I voted against the opening of the second envelope dahil ang paniwala ng taong bayan, kung ayaw naming buksan ang second envelope na yan, may tinatago kami.” (Because people believed if we refused to open the second envelope, we were hiding something.)

And they were right to feel that way.

Today’s Senate might want to remember that lesson. If senators insist on hiding behind procedural delays and legal technicalities, what message are they sending to the public? That the powerful are above accountability? That truth is negotiable?

Santiago’s words feel hauntingly relevant today in the same way: “Kung ayaw ninyong ituloy ang impeachment, may tinatago kayo.”

History has a cruel habit of circling back on those who ignore its warnings. The mistakes we fail to confront, the truths we bury beneath procedure and power plays – they don’t disappear. They wait, festering in silence, until one day, return wearing a new face, asking the same unanswered questions. And when that moment comes, it rarely knocks gently.

The line between due process and denial of justice is razor-thin – and when legal systems are twisted or manipulated, truth too often slips through the cracks.

If we’ve learned anything – whether from cinemas, courtrooms, or the cries of protest in the streets – it’s this:

The people are watching. And when justice is delayed and denied, they don’t forget.

Content & editing put together in collaboration with ChatGPT

Head photos courtesy of Freepik and Canva

Still photos courtesy of IMDb, Al Jazeera, Reuters, Philippine Information Agency, UCA News, Getty Images, Senate Public Relations and Information Bureau, & Dreamstime

MY BITTERSWEET BRUSHES WITH DUTERTE DIEHARD SUPPORTERS

 

For a writer, few dilemmas are more difficult than choosing between comfort and confrontation. To write is to risk – especially when the words begin to shake the ground beneath familiar feet. Some writers chase applause, others pursue truth, and often, the two refuse to meet.

The moment you step into political commentary, you are no longer just telling stories; you are taking sides, whether you mean to or not. And when those sides cut across your own relationships – across bloodlines, friendships, and beliefs – the pen can feel like both a sword and a burden.

My first brushes with Duterte Diehard Supporters - or DDS, as they are known - began when I consciously decided to shift gears in my writing. I still remember my daughter Jan who suggested to me to plunge into showbiz – after all, the genre never runs out of eager readers. But the idea made me shudder. I felt called to tackle something weightier, more consequential.

What I didn’t foresee was how deeply divisive this path would be. It wasn’t just strangers who put up ideological walls; even within my own family and circle of friends, I found myself navigating complex, often emotionally charged exchanges. The DDS, known for their unswerving loyalty to former President Rodrigo Duterte, were not just political supporters – they were, and still are, fiercely protective, quick to defend, and relentless in debate.

In the heated lead-up to the 2022 presidential election, I penned an article for ATABAY on November 16, 2021, titled Leni vs. Marcos-Duterte: A Modern David and Goliath Fight. I opened with a dramatic metaphor drawn from the Biblical story:

“Goliath moved forward, closing in on David, his shield-bearer in front of him. When he saw that David was only a lad, Goliath despised him and said, ‘Am I a dog you should approach me with a stick?’ and cursing David.”

I likened Leni Robredo to David – an underdog – and the formidable Marcos-Duterte alliance to Goliath. It struck a nerve immediately. The comments came pouring in, many of them laced with anger or incredulity.

“How do you know God is on Leni’s side?” one skeptic asked.

To that, I answered not with a single quote, but a string of reflections:

“Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.” (1 Corinthians 14:1)

“What is needed desperately today is prophetic insight. Scholars can interpret the past; it takes prophets to interpret the present.” (Aiden Wilson Tozer)

“Each of us has the gift of ‘prophetic insight.’ That sounds intimidating. But, one example, in our day-to-day life, we can just call it ‘budgeting.’

“Suppose one of you wants to build a [house]. Won’t you first list down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it? (Luke 14:28)”

To those who dismissed Leni as incompetent, I was thankful when a friend stepped in before I could. He laid out a clear defense:

“Did you see the COA report? She was among the top performers despite being given the cold shoulder by Duterte and having her budget withheld. As a one-term Congresswoman, she passed over a dozen bills into law. She’s an Economics graduate in UP, a lawyer, and an honorary doctor of laws – with no trace of corruption.”

I responded to the incompetence critique with a reflection on the very metaphor critics had challenged. David was just a lad and a shepherd. His tribe trembled at the sight of Goliath, fearing his certain death. The other side laughed, mocked, and demeaned him. Yet it was David, the incompetent, who triumphed.

One particularly provocative comment caught my attention:

“David defeated Goliath. So, in this analogy, whoever wins the election is David.”

That was six months before the May 9, 2022 election – an election that Bongbong "won." The quotation marks are courtesy of Eliseo Rio and the lingering controversy over the alleged use of the "illegal" private IP address 192.168.0.2 in the transmission of election returns. Otherwise, the DDS would have to face a harsher reality, that Bongbong, if he had genuinely won, would have been a David.

Fast forward today, and the essence of the proposition - whoever wins is David – feels increasingly hollow - especially now, as the once-solid UniTeam collapsed. The idea that winning equals righteousness is one the DDS themselves are now struggling to deal with.

Recently, my newest article, Sara’s Shrinking Road To 2028: Beneath Two Damocles Swords has again stirred controversy. Published just after the 2025 midterm elections and on the cusp of two major events – Sara’s looming impeachment and her father’s legal battles at The Hague – it has become another flashpoint.

In the face of renewed backlash, I offered this reflection:

“For many men, it’s difficult not to be drawn to a striking face – like that of Sara – frequently seen across the political landscape. I recall reading a news piece about her once, during a demolition operation in Davao, where she reportedly punched a court sheriff. My knee-jerk reaction? Rather than condemn the act as unbecoming, I admired her audacity – a response, perhaps, all too common among men.”

Though I was born in Mindanao, I never voted for her father. One verse had stopped me cold:

“For the mouth speaks from the abundance of the heart.” (Matthew 12:34).

His notorious remark – Who is this stupid God?”– was, for me, unspeakable.

And yet, I’ve long carried a soft spot for Sara. In a 2021 ATABAY article titled: “Letter To Inday Sara Supporter Who Is Also My Friend” I wrote:

“What flashes across my mind now is [Sara’s] namesake in American politics – Sarah Palin… her being a woman, a mother, and a fresh face, let alone being attractive, were potential pluses, stirring up excitement and newsworthiness to her campaign.”

But that admiration was tempered by concern.

“Bongbong is running under the umbrella of multiple parties with a throng of vested interests. Aiming now for the 2028 presidency is a horde of younger and ambitious breed of second-generation leaders emerging from a band of dynastic political clans embedded in Bongbong’s camp.”

That same horde of younger and ambitious breed – those I likened to the so-called tambaloslos et al – began to rise, just as I had predicted. And now, the rest has unfolded before us.

Former Congressman Joey Salceda floated ROSA tandem – Robredo and Sara - a radical idea that never took root. But today, in the shadow of Sara’s uncertain future, it makes one wonder about the roads not taken.

When another DDS labeled me anti-Duterte, I responded:

“If I were truly anti-Duterte, as you suggested, I wouldn’t have included the segment Can Sara Recover? in my article.

“That portion offered a possible path forward for her – to reclaim her name, though it’s an uphill climb, in the wake of two looming challenges – the two Damocles swords: her impeachment and her father’s case at The Hague.”

A private message from a reader gave me a quiet moment of affirmation: “You know how to deal with DDS.” I replied:

“My own daughter living in the U.S. is a hardcore DDS. In political verbal exchange, I treat all DDS like the way I treat my daughter.”

A longtime friend, a DDS, once asked me point-blank whether I’m pro- or anti-Duterte. My answer remains the same:

"I am pro-God."

Content and editing put together in collaboration with ChatGPT & Canva

Head photo courtesy of Getty Images and Facebook

Still photos courtesy of Deposit Photos, Freepik, Pixabay, & Shutterstock

SARA'S SHRINKING ROAD TO 2028: BENEATH TWO DAMOCLES SWORDS

 

Politics thrives on irony, and few moments capture it better than former President Rodrigo Duterte’s landslide mayoral victory in Davao, won from thousands of miles away in The Hague detention cell. The strongman who once ruled Malacañang with an iron fist now wields power from exile, even as his name is etched into an international court proceedings for crimes against humanity.

The immediate, almost reflexive question arises: Can he truly govern Davao from The Hague after his landslide victory? But beyond the technicalities lies a far more gut-wrenching twist - is this astonishing win the political resurrection of a man defying the odds, or merely the “last hurrah” of a dynasty on the verge of fading into history?

“Rodrigo Duterte wins Philippines mayoral election from jail in The Hague” – The Guardian headline

As two swords of Damocles hang over Sara Duterte’s impeachment in Manila and her father’s prosecution in The Hague, the road to 2028 that once seemed inevitable is shrinking beneath her feet – a reckoning she cannot outrun.

A Shrinking Road - A Reckoning Awaiting

Sara’s road to the 2028 presidential race was once wide and promising, paved by a powerful family name and a regional dominance. But time has a way of narrowing paths, especially for those caught between history’s harsh judgments and the weight of unspoken truths.

Sara now approaches two crucial crossroads, each bearing a sword of Damocles, hanging precariously over her political fate. The first is a two-edged sword – her impeachment trial – sharpened by accountability and political warfare, threatening to open a Pandora’s box of her family’s alleged hidden wealth, among others, accumulated over decades of rule in Davao.

“Sara Duterte wants impeachment trial to go on, sees ‘bloodbath’” – Bangkok Post headline

The second, even more ominous, is her father’s trial at The Hague. What Sara imagines her impeachment to be – a political bloodbath – is nothing compared to the real bloodbath of testimonies about extrajudicial killings, delivered by families of the thousands slain during her father’s reign of terror.

These two trials – one in the Philippines and one on the world stage – are not mere legal battles. They are reckonings that will define the Duterte name for generations.

The Impeachment Sword: A Risk Beyond The Verdict

Impeachment is never just about guilt or innocence – it is about the unearthing of truths long hidden. Sara’s impeachment trial has already peeled back layers of financial secrecy, with House prosecutors seeking to subpoena her bank records since her confidential funds scandal seems to be merely the tip of the iceberg.

Former Senator Antonio Trillanes has long alleged that the Duterte family’s wealth is far greater than publicly disclosed, pointing to three decades of power in Davao as the foundation of this political dynasty. If the Senate court allows the bank records to be scrutinized, it could shatter the Duterte dynasty’s credibility, revealing transactions shielded for decades under bank secrecy laws.

“Duterte’s hidden wealth is sure sign of kleptocracy” – De Lima

Even if acquitted, Sara will not walk away unscathed. The process itself ensures that her reputation will remain in question, fueling doubts about financial integrity and her ability to lead a nation.

The Hague Prosecution: A Legacy On Trial

While Sara Duterte fights for her survival in the Senate, her father is fighting a very different battle at The Hague. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has charged her father with crimes against humanity, alleging his war on drugs – first enacted in Davao and later nationwide – as a systematic campaign of terror.

Sara rushed to The Hague after her father’s arrest, overseeing his legal defense. But the real challenge lies not in the courtroom, but in public perception.

How does one run for president while defending a father accused of state-sponsored killings? How does one distance oneself from a legacy soaked in blood, while needing that legacy to secure political power?

The ICC trial will cast Rodrigo Duterte’s rule in harrowing detail, as families of victims recount chilling narratives of executions, forced disappearances, and ominous death lists that terrorized the poor and powerless. These testimonies will not only cement Duterte’s global disrepute but will also inevitably place a weight upon Sara - one she must bear, whether she wills it or not.

Fully aware of this sobering reality, Duterte's defense lawyers have been going all out in seeking to have the case dismissed outright, arguing lack of jurisdiction before proceedings even begin.

Former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte at The Hague

Can Sara Recover?

The two swords hanging over her fate do not just threaten her credibility – they cast doubt over her entire political future. Whether she is acquitted or convicted, whether her father wins or loses his case at The Hague, Sara must attempt an extraordinary political recovery if she still hopes to stand in 2028.

Here’s how she might try to rebuild her name:

1. Reframing the Narrative: Positioning herself as a victim of political persecution, arguing that both trials were engineered to silence the Duterte legacy.

2. Forging New Alliances: Rallying disillusioned allies and creating an independent political bloc to salvage her influence.

3. Pivoting to Governance Reforms: Focusing on education, national security, and economic recovery, shifting the conversation away from her legal troubles.

4. Leveraging Regional Strength: Mindanao remains her fortress, and she may try to consolidate local backing to fuel the comeback.

5. Distancing from The Hague Trial: Finding a subtle way to acknowledge her father’s legacy without fully embracing its controversies, though this may prove impossible.

But - a big but - will any of this be enough? The electorate has started to change, as shown by the recent midterm election. Sara herself was disappointed at the Senate race results: “Not the outcome we had hoped for.” Politics is no longer just about loyalty and dynasty – it is about scrutiny, credibility, and survival under the weight of exposed truths.

The Process, Not The Verdict, Will Decide Her Fate

The two trials – one in Manila, one in The Hague – are not simply about legal outcomes. They are reckonings that go beyond courts and verdicts. They are about the exposure of long-protected truths, truths that will shape the Duterte name forever.

Even if Sara survives impeachment and her father avoids conviction, the public discourse surrounding their legacy will not fade.

In the end, when history delivers its final judgment, it will not be the verdicts that shape the legacy – it will be the journey that exposed the cracks, not merely the destination that sought to contain them. It will be the revelations that dismantled illusions, not the legalities that sought to preserve them.

And when all is laid bare – when truth, raw and unfiltered (remember Piattos & Chippy et al controversy?), spills forth like an exposé too glaring to ignore – the reckoning will come, not in the cold pronouncements of a court, but in the collective awakening of a nation.

Content & editing put together in collaboration with Microsoft Bing AI-Powered Co-Pilot

Head photo courtesy of ChatGPT Image Creator & Canva

Still photos courtesy of Eloisa Lopez/Reuters, Rappler, ICC, & Depositphotos.

ELECTION 2025 POST MORTEM: BAM-KIKO WIN DEBUNKED SURVEYS

 

“The dirty little secrets of… survey… they are largely junk science, placing marketing objectives of telling and selling a good story, above the practical and ethical objective of telling the truth… Often statistical methods are misused, corrupting survey results while providing an air of scientific legitimacy…” - “Surveys and Dirty Little Secret: Hidden Distortion, Bias Illusion of Scientific Validity”

For years, political surveys have been touted as scientific tools to gauge public sentiment. But the 2025 senatorial elections pulled the curtain on that illusion. Once dismissed as non-contenders, Paolo Benigno Bam Aquino and Francis Kiko Pangilinan – both perennial laggards in pre-election surveys – rose dramatically in actual results, clinching the 2nd and 5th spots, respectively.

Kiko Pangilinan & Bam Aquino

This sharp deviation has prompted introspection among pollsters. Pulse Asia president Ronald Holmes has acknowledged the need to reassess their methodology, particularly to reflect better the perspectives of younger voters, including Millennials and Gen Z.

University of the Philippines statistician Peter Cayton recommended a thorough post mortem analysis of why projections diverged so starkly from reality.

As someone who has previously written about this phenomenon, I offer a few thoughts from my April 6, 2024, ATABAY piece, The Unseen Impact: How Early Surveys & Non-Responders Shape PH Elections, reimagined in light of this evolving controversy.

The Silent Voter: A Cautionary Tale

Imagine this: You’re a Bam-Kiko supporter, navigating the busy streets of the city when a friendly surveyor approaches with a clipboard.

“Sorry to bother you,” she says, “I’m surveying about the upcoming election. Would you like to participate?”

You hesitate. Memories of past surveys – those that confidently forecasted one outcome but delivered another – cloud your mind. You’ve read about survey manipulation, statistical misdirection, and built-in biases that make participation feel like complicity in a larger scheme.

Worse, you recall seeing a survey already floating around for the 2028 presidential elections – three years too early. It didn’t feel like an attempt to listen to the people. It felt like propaganda.

With a polite but resolute tone, you decline.

“I’ve lost faith in surveys,” you say. “They’ve failed us before.”

The surveyor nods, perhaps understanding more than she lets on.

“Your voice matters,” she says. “But I understand.”

And just like that, she disappears into the crowd, unaware that her brief encounter reflects a deeper crisis in the democratic process. That moment wasn’t just about a missed data point. It was a revelation of non-response bias, the erosion of public trust, and the weaponization of surveys as tools of manipulation rather than as instruments of truth.

Crowds, Drones, and the Collapse of Illusions

How many disillusioned voters like the one in that vignette exist today? The answer might lie in a moment often overlooked: the 2022 campaign rallies of then-Vice President Leni Robredo and Ferdinand Bongbong Marcos Jr.

On the same evening in Metro Manila, Leni drew a crowd of over 400,000 in Pasay, while Bongbong’s rally in Sampaloc gathered around 14,000. Drone shots – or lack thereof – spoke volumes. Leni’s sweeping crowd filled every pixel. Bongbong’s event? Curiously missing aerial coverage, perhaps because showing it would shatter the illusion of a landslide.

If news outlets had dared to juxtapose those images, a banner headline might have read:

VP Leni’s Rally (400,000+) Beats 28-Fold Marcos Jr.’s Crowd (14,000)

A quiet but powerful birthday gift.

VP Leni 2022 Pasay Campaign Rally

Add to this the still-unresolved 2022 election transmission anomalies, such as Eliseo Rio’s concerns over the IP address 192.168.0.2, and the collapse of the Duter10 supposedly political juggernaut - the narrative of the so-called 31 million votes for Bongbong begins to look increasingly implausible.

The Anatomy of Manufactured Consent

As early as February 2022, I warned of how surveys were being leveraged not just to inform, but to manipulate. Bongbong’s campaign had effectively co-opted every major communication channel – social media, news outlets, and, yes, survey firms.

The headlines were simultaneous and relentless:

“Marcos Jr. Leads Latest Pulse Asia Survey For Presidential Race” – Inquirer

“Pulse Asia: Marcos’ Lead Grows…” – Philstar

“Bongbong, Sara Keep Survey Lead” – The Manila Times

“Sara Leads By A Mile For VP” – Manila Standard

“BBM, Sara Keep Pole Positions In Surveys” – Daily Tribune

But are such surveys truly news, or just cleverly disguised propaganda? As former Senator Richard Gordon asked in 2010 while suing Pulse Asia and SWS:

“Are we supposed to accept the results of the survey as gospel truth? What if they are wrong?”

 

The Case for Skepticism – and Reform

Worldwide, trust in polling has plummeted. From the U.S. elections of 2016 and 2020 to recent misfires in Europe and Asia, it’s become clear:  polling is broken. In the U.S., Real Clear Politics at least has aggregated data from multiple pollsters to mitigate bias. Here in the Philippines, we seem to rely overwhelmingly on a single entity – Pulse Asia.

The words of filmmaker Darryl Yap strike a raw but resonant chord: 

“We are just stupid… I don’t get offended when people say, “O nabudol ka.”

A Wake-Up Call - Courtesy of Bam and Kiko

In many ways, the unexpected electoral success of Bam and Kiko serves as an exorcism of this “budol” culture. It’s a vindication for voters who refused to be gaslit by survey headlines and media narratives. It reminds that democracy is not measured in percentage printed on clipboards, but in the lived convictions of people who show up – whether in the streets, at the polls, or in quiet defiance.

The time has come to stop treating surveys as scripture. Instead, let’s demand transparency, multiplicity of legit sources, and a robust public discourse that values truth over trend.

Let the voters, not the surveys, shape our future.

Content & editing put together in collaboration with ChatGPT

Head photo courtesy of Rappler & Canva

Still photos courtesy of GMA, YouTube, Philippine News Agency, & The Today Show

SHADOWS OF THE CONCLAVE: WHY CARDINAL TAGLE WAS LEFT BEHIND

 

For a brief, weighty instant, the world waited in silence. Behind the sealed doors of the Sistine Chapel, beneath the watchful eyes of Michelangelo’s masterpieces, the crimson-clad cardinals took their sacred oath. The murmurs had faded, the ballots had been cast, and destiny hovered in the balance.

The Catholic cardinals have spoken - American Cardinal Robert Prevost has ascended as Pope Leo XIV. 

Pope Leo XIV

The news cycle has rapidly unraveled the identity of this new pontiff, dissecting the reasons for his election and speculating on the implications of his reign.

Yet amid the fervor, another name lingers in our minds – the name of the man many believed was a natural successor to Pope Francis, Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle. The Asian Francis, once seen as a formidable contender, was left in the shadows. The pressing question remains: Why did Tagle falter in his pursuing the papacy?

Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle

The foreboding echoes of my November 27, 2022, ATABAY article, Cardinal Tagle Sacking: Refiner’s Fire or Missing the Boat to Papacy? offer insights that may unlock the answer. It examined Tagle’s abrupt removal from Caritas Internationalis, the Vatican’s global charity network, a dismissal that hinted at deeper issues within his leadership. An independent review exposed a troubling workplace environment – allegations of favoritism, verbal abuse, and managerial lapses surfaced, prompting sweeping changes. No financial misconduct or personal scandal was found, yet the specter of “bad management” loomed large.

The Weight of Leadership

Years ago, when I taught management at a local university, I would begin my class by writing POSDCIR on the board – the seven core functions of management: Planning, Organizing, Staffing, Directing, Controlling, Innovating, and Representing. Among them, I stressed two critical people aspects: Organizing and Staffing. The description of the job position must always precede the selection of the person filling it. The reverse – slotting a favored individual into a role before defining responsibilities – is the breeding ground of organizational dysfunction.

Favoritism, often an unconscious misstep, is a managerial flaw that erodes trust. One hospital administrator once confided to me that the resolution to his people conflicts was found in a single management book in his hand. “The solutions were all here,” he said, astonished. Leadership, after all, is a discipline that extends beyond intuition – it demands structure, discernment, and an ability to cultivate talent within a system rather than around it.

Was Tagle’s tenure at Caritas plagued by fundamental management shortcomings? Did he lack the structural rigor necessary for leading a global humanitarian organization? These are not accusations but contemplations – questions that demand reflection. His theological prowess was never in doubt, but leadership within the Vatican operates not just in the realm of faith, but also in the domain of institutional governance.

Lessons from Nehemiah

The Bible offers its template for leadership – none more compelling than Nehemiah, the man tasked with reconstructing Jerusalem’s ruined walls. Unlike those who lead from abstraction, Nehemiah aligned his people with his vision, communicated clear objectives, and delegated responsibilities with precision. His model exemplified leadership and management, proving that faith alone does not build structure – strategy does.

A scholar, Ogoshi K. Deborah, identified key traits that made Nehemiah effective:

1. He prays.

2. He provides a clear vision.

3. He uses available resources.

4. He has foresight.

5. He attends to his people’s needs, morals, and values.

6. He is a role model.

7. He adapts to resistance to change.

If these qualities defined strong leadership, where did Tagle fall within this framework? Did he exemplify vision and adaptability, or did lapses in structure hinder his rise? The answer is not singular, nor does history reveal its cards too easily.

The Dossier and the Shadows of the Past

Before the conclave, reports emerged of a dossier presented to the voting cardinals – The College of Cardinals Report, a comprehensive assessment of papal candidates. While framed as a neutral resource, some Vatican insiders claimed it carried an implicit anti-Francis slant, subtly shaping preferences among electors. If such a document held weight, did it resurrect the specter of Tagle’s past governance at Caritas?

The reality remains elusive. Yet, as the world watched, a poignant image surfaced – Tagle, standing prominently in a conclave photo, overshadowed by the man behind him who would soon wear the Fisherman’s Ring. “History has a remarkable way of surprising us. Sometimes, the true narrative begins in the shadows, not in the spotlight,” one Facebook user profoundly commented.

Pope Leo XIV and Cardinal Tagle

Belgian artist Erik Pevernagie once wrote: “When we feel lost in time, with only shadows of the past living in our mind… we may wonder: ‘What went wrong?’”

Perhaps Cardinal Tagle, in quiet reflection, has pondered the same. His cognizance is a handwriting on the wall: “The papal decree is a call to walk humbly with God and be open to a process of discernment, which includes acknowledging shortcomings.”

Leadership is not merely about ascendancy but about the ability to hold trust. The Bible offers a stark litmus test: Whoever can be trusted in small matters can also be trusted in great ones.

Whether Tagle truly missed the boat to the papacy, or whether history charted a different course, remains a question without absolute answers.

Let me wrap up this article with the tale of a boy named Luis who loved building boats. He dreamed that one day, his finest creation would sail down the great river beyond his town. When the moment finally came, a sudden gust of wind sent the boat off course, appearing to have capsized before it could begin its journey. Heartbroken, he watched as the waters swallowed his dream.

Days later, a traveler arrived carrying a familiar wooden boat. “I found this washed ashore,” he said. “It floated beyond the bend, where the river widens into the sea.”

Luis’ plan had been small, but the river carried his dream to places he never imagined.

Perhaps Cardinal Tagle, too, envisioned a different path, only for fate to chart its course. The currents of providence rarely follow the maps we draw. As Ignatius of Loyola once said: “God uses crooked sticks to draw straight lines.”

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

Head photo courtesy of ChatGPT image creator & Canva

Still photos courtesy of CNN, Shutterstock, The Guardian, Adobe Stock, Getty Images, & The Up Devotional

SUPERMAN BART & POPE DONALD: THE COSTUME FALLACY

(Before we tackle the absurdity of Springfield, a quick note: This episode is purely a fan-made creation, inspired by The Simpsons but not part of the official show. Now, let’s get into the mischief.)

Springfield is buzzing. The Superman movie has hit theaters, and Bart Simpson – Springfield’s premier agent of chaos – is determined to seize this moment of heroism for himself. What follows is not just another trip to the movies but an event that spirals into the ridiculous realm of Springfield logic.

Scene 1: The Living Room – Bart’s Pitch

(Bart vaults onto the coach, nearly knocking over Homer, comfortably engaged in a staring contest with the television.)

Bart: Dad! The new Superman movie is out. We have to see it!

Homer: (yawning) Eh, I dunno, boy. I got a whole night of sitting planned.

Bart: Come on! Superman can fly, lift cars, shoot lasers from his eyes – he’s everything you’re not!

Homer: (scoffs) I can lift a donut pretty fast.

(Marge enters, with Lisa trailing behind, catching the conversation.)

Marge: Oh, Superman? You know, I always liked Christopher Reeve.

Christopher "Superman" Reeve

Lisa: Superman is fine, I guess. But people put too much faith in heroes. They should focus on real-world issues, like climate change.

Bart: Ugh, Lisa! We get it – you want an eco-friendly Superman who fights pollution instead of bad guys.

(Homer scratches his belly, contemplating popcorn logistics.)

Homer: Alright, fine. But if the movie theater doesn’t sell popcorn bigger than my head, I’m walking out.

(Bart fist-pumps in victory.)

Scene 2. The Simpsons’ Living Room – Post-movie Excitement

(Bart and Homer burst through the front door, fueled by cinematic adrenaline.)

Bart: Dad, that was AWESOME!

(Bart dramatically flings off his jacket, revealing a brand-new Superman costume.)

Bart: BEHOLD! Springfield’s next superhero!

(Lisa watches, unimpressed. Marge sighs as Maggie sucks her pacifier in quiet judgment.)

Lisa: Oh no, here we go…

Marge: Bart, wearing a Superman costume doesn’t make you Superman.

Superman Bart

(Marge and Lisa exchange glances, shaking their heads.)

Lisa: Why do people think wearing a costume instantly makes them special?

Marge: And what’s next – wearing the Pope’s attire?

(Maggie, ever wise, agrees with a well-timed pacifier suck.)

Now let’s pause for a reality check.

In the long-running animated sitcom The Simpson, Bart is the mischievous 10-year-old prankster, forever scheming, forever unrepentant – his catchphrase “Eat my shorts!” - a proud declaration of defiance.

This brings us to a certain character making waves in the world today.

Superman Trump

A 10-Year-Old in Presidential Clothing

Michael Steele, former chair of the Republican National Committee, reacted recently to the viral Pope Donald meme with this brutally accurate assessment:

“During this period of Novemdiales (mourning the loss of Pope Francis), I’ll set this offense aside because Trump in his narcissism gets off on our being offended. More to the point, this affirms how unserious and incapable he is. At 78, he remains a 10-YEAR-OLD CHILD, emotionally scarred and broken while desperate to prove he could be somebody. His problem: he can’t grow up to prove it.” (Underscoring mine)

Spot on. Just as Bart Simpson thinks a Superman costume grants him hero status, so too, does Trump seem equally convinced that wearing a papal attire grants him reverence.

Trump bathes in political power – the kind that lets him push people around – but deep down, it’s another kind of power he craves. The Pope doesn’t wield control through intimidation or coercion. His authority comes from presence, principle, and legacy. And that’s something Trump, despite all the titles, will never attain.

Pope Donald

Even Pope Francis knew this dynamic well. He called Trump’s mass deportation plan a disgrace, labeled him not Christian, and warned that his immigration policies will end badly. Yes, Trump still finds himself drawn to the Pope, perhaps seeing in him something elusive – something he cannot manipulate into submission.

Could this surreal fixation smacks of his craving for Xi Jinping’s lifetime rule in China? A whisper of longing for permanent power?

After all, wannabe King Trump and King Herod share eerie parallels. Herod despised John the Baptist for calling out his corruption, yet secretly admired his righteousness. Trump bristles at Pope Francis’ moral criticism but remains in awe of his global influence – a type of influence he knows he can never truly wield.

Wannabe King Trump & King Herod

Social media users summed up the absurdity of it all:

“Donald Trump, a godless man and convicted criminal who cheated on his wife with a porn star, posting a photo of himself as the Pope is a direct insult to Catholics around the world.”

“Trump posted memes about being the Pope because he doesn’t actually respect Christians, at all. You’re just more suckers and losers to him.”

“Trump just posted an AI image of himself as the Pope. Instead of working to bring down costs, he’s doing this instead. Nice job, MAGA! You elected a man-child.”

Speaking of man-children, let’s return to the original one – Bart Simpson.

Final Scene: The Viral Sensation and Bart’s Ultimate Monologue

(Bart gasps at his phone screen, eyes wide.)

Bart: LOOK! My Superman photo is going viral! THEY ADORE ME!

Lisa: Oh great! Now the Make Springfield Great Again world thinks Bart is an actual superhero.

(Homer leans back in his chair, grinning.)

Homer: Hey, if this works out, we might finally get grifting stuff! You know, heroes don’t pay for things!

Marge: Homer…

(Bart now fully lost in his hype, leaps onto the kitchen table.)

Ladies, gentlemen, and my loyal followers of Make Springfield Great Again – I present the only greatest force this town has ever seen. ME. Bart Simpson. A name so powerful, so legendary, that mere whispers send teachers running and parents sighing in resignation.

Rules? Suggestions. Consequences? An illusion for lesser beings. Detention slips? My trophies – proof of my unstoppable reign.

The principal? Poor guy. He must be exhausted, waking up every morning knowing Bart Simpson still exists.

Springfield needs me. Without my pranks, wisdom, and genius, this town would crumble. This is about making money - er, history. And trust me, history will remember me.

I strategize, I execute, I dominate. I cannot be stopped. I cannot be contained. I am greatness itself.

(Bart hops off the table, strikes a final pose, and struts triumphantly out of the room.)

Disclaimer: This article presents an original, fan-made episode inspired by The Simpsons but is not affiliated with the official show. The characters and setting remain the intellectual property of their creators, and this work is purely for entertainment.

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

Head collage photos courtesy of ChatGPT image, Canva, The Independent, DeviantArt, & Adobe Stock

Still photos courtesy of Wallpapers.com, Gelwallpapers.com, First For Women, PicMix, The Guardian, Craiyon, Dreamstime, Red Bubble, Saint Jude Catholic School, & Pinterest