Davao City’s acting mayor, “Baste” Duterte, and PNP Chief Gen. Nicolas Torre III are bickering with one another, not due to a policy difference or a national issue, but because of wounded egos, which they agreed to settle through a boxing match. Not only is it petty, but it’s reprehensible. And if those who are supposedly running peace and order in the country act like this, then what order is the country to expect?

Public tantrums by public figures have long been a staple of Philippine politics, but it is tragic to see two grown men, one the head of a major city and the other the head of the country’s police bureau, acting like schoolboys jostling each other for who’s tougher. Being “Mayor” or “Chief” is to be presumed to be equipped with dignity, responsibility, and restraint. Instead, what the nation gets is a theatrical display of machismo, personal vendettas, and sheer disregard for the duties they are sworn to perform. What we’re witnessing is not leadership—it’s ego in uniform, flexing muscles instead of character.

Mayor Baste Duterte’s tirade against the deployment of the PNP Special Action Force in his city and calling Torre to resign would have been justified had he done it on the premise of legitimate grievances, vented through the appropriate channels. But diverting the PNP Chief during a press conference and challenging him to a fist fight is an act drawn from the depths of impulse and immaturity. It wasn’t a debate—it was a provocation. And when powerful men treat the state like their sandbox, the citizenry are mere collateral casualties.

But again, PNP Chief Torre is no innocent bystander himself. His mysterious yet snarky responses to Duterte’s taunts were burning the fire instead. As the chief policeman of the nation, he was meant to calm down the head, not ignite it. But rather than act the role of the cooler head, Torre opted to employ sarcasm rather than statesmanship. In an institution that already suffers from high crime rates and office politics, he believed that engaging in a war of words with a mayor was his time well spent. It’s a tragic squandering of his office, and more, a lost chance to show professionalism and maturity.

The whole charade is a diversion from serious governance. As two officials slug each other out with microphones and press statements, public safety, peace, and order in society, and institutional trust is all taken hostage. Davao, which used to be a bastion of discipline, is now becoming the stage for a soap opera in rapid time. And the Philippine National Police, which has to be above local politicking, is drawn into a drama that tarnishes it with its own credibility loss.

The core of the issue is that this is not an isolated incident. Too many of our officials, from barangay to national, view seats of power as personal crowns. They attack their critics instead of listening to them, they demand loyalty instead of public service, and they always look at themselves as kings, not as civil servants. What is dangerous is that when officials behave like children, they set the tone for the whole bureaucracy. When there are petty leaders, the institutions below them collapse with similar pettiness.

The drama in Philippine politics has always been present, but this latest form of immaturity is no longer entertaining—it is corrosive. Filipinos have been drilled time and again to respect and obey their leaders, but how can one show respect when said leaders themselves lose respect for anything other than machismo, ridicule, and drama? A country governed by egoistic thin skins is bound to trip, because good leadership involves the ability to take offense without hitting back in the same coin.

What this nation needs are leaders who realize that public service is not ego-boasting but a noble mandate. Administrators who cannot keep their mouths closed, curb their rage, or control their temper do not deserve the seats they hold. It’s time to elect leaders whose power doesn’t lie in their fists or sound bites, but in their capacity to hear, decide, and act with integrity, not reaction. The nation deserves grown-ups as legislators, not boys wearing big-boy suits.

In all, it shows we are all connected, we are affected and yes, if it’s raining in Manila problems can hit us here in Tacloban.

At exactly 2:20 PM on the 22nd of July I checked on the web for real time weather and yes, its raining in Manila and cloudy in Tacloban.

Yes, it is raining in Manila right now! The city is experiencing heavy rain with a 90% chance of precipitation throughout the day, and even more intense showers expected tonight. There is also a flood warning in effect, so folks there might want to keep their umbrellas—and maybe their boots—handy. The advisory goes

Right now, in Tacloban, it is light rain showers with cloudy skies and a high humidity of 90%, making it feel warmer than the actual temperature of 30°C—more like 37°C. So not sunny now! The weather Application says so.

Monsoon the Southwest Monsoon to be exact and the Typhoon Crising was the culprit of the floods and torrential rains.

Prior to the Facebook era all these can be an after the event conversation, right now it is a blow-by-blow analysis and real time watching and unfolding. Any problem with this?

Let me count the ways; the Geography and the Coastlines can also create Spillover Rainfall, which means soon rains can come, here in the Eastern Visayas . The big problem in Matnog Port may create Disrupted Transport: Heavy rains in Luzon have already led to road closures and port suspensions, which can delay inter-island shipping and logistics to Visayas. This affects supply chains, especially for food and fuel. Add the San Juanico Problem, it is going to be hitting us a bit hard. Stranded Passengers can also be there. Sea travel has been suspended in parts of the Visayas, leaving hundreds of passengers stranded in ports. This is especially tough for small boat operators and fisherfolk.

In all, it shows we are all connected, we are affected and yes, if its raining in Manila problems can hit us here in Tacloban.

A simple term that does not require knowledge in law or rocket science had drawn people into debates that divide not just the senate and the lower house but the Filipino nation as well. We do not know where those who choose to make understanding the simple word took their elementary education, but this writer’s elementary school taught the simple word forthwith its simple meaning that is immediate. It is not later or any convenient time one wishes to perform the required act. To proceed immediately and without delay is the simple interpretation of the word.

With the turbulence caused by the intentional misinterpretation of the constitutional provision, the incumbent senate president had taken liberty is delaying the impeachment trial of the impeached vice president. The tactic is clearly giving the impeached vice president the luxury of time to travel anywhere, chiefly to the Hague in the Netherlands to visit her beloved father, the former and now detained president who is in detention under the order of the International Criminal Court.

The issue of the impeachment delay had hogged the limelight as headlines in social media. Many legal experts had been invited by the senate to shed light on the issue. The resource persons included retired supreme court justices, constitutional law professors and members of the constitutional commission that drafted the present constitution. All opinions failed to overcome the stubborn position and interpretation of the senate president.

Filed during the previous congress, the impeachment trial never happened as the consistent ad hominem to attack the inaction of congress over the previous impeachment complaints filed before the lower house. The explanation is cyclic to buttress the senate president’s position that there is no reason to hurry him now in the same manner that the lower house did not hurry to bring the impeachment complaint against the now impeached vice president.

While the senate has not yet started the impeachment trial, two senators who are long-time loyalists to the former and now detained president, took the floor to move for the dismissal of the impeachment complaint. The motion to dismiss was purportedly based on the defective impeachment complaint and the alleged violation of the constitutional provision that allows only one impeachment complaint in a year. The motion seeks the dismissal of the impeachment complaint without trial.

It was followed by a lengthy discussion on the purported violation of the one-year bar rule that was interrupted by contrary discussion of the minority on the necessity to start the impeachment trial. The discussion was again interrupted by a privileged motion of the magical president sister. The discussion which begun on the construction of the word forthwith turned to be a display of poor wits.
comments to alellema@yahoo.com