ANC calls out proposal to benefit ex-Presidents with life-long privileges

CHEERS TO ANC’s “Dateline Philippines” for the quick and prompt check on the proposed Former Presidents Benefits Act, an example of the misplaced priorities and patronage politics practiced by the members of the House of Representatives. Media had reported in February that Senators Christopher “Bong” Go, Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, Mark Villar, and Francis Tolentino filed their version of the bill. 

Aired on March 2, the program host and anchor, Karmina Constantino placed on the spot Rep. Divina Grace Yu of the first district of Zamboanga del Sur who co-authored the bill with her daughter, Rep. Jeyzel Victoria Yu of Zamboanga del Sur’s fourth district. The interview exposed the purpose of the bill for what it was—a gift of privileges and services for former President Rodrigo Duterte for the rest of his life at the people’s expense. 

In both versions, the bill seeks to grant former chief executives the following perks for the rest of their lives: 

• Staff members;
• “Suitable” and “appropriately furnished and equipped” office space; and
• At least five security personnel assigned to them and their immediate family. 

All of the above to be determined by the former presidents. 

Constantino’s questions were direct and to the point: What was the rationale of the proposal? It was about “about giving honor” to former presidents. Asked to elaborate, Yu reasoned that the specific “privileges” are necessary for the ex-presidents to be able to “advise” current government officials. 

Constantino’s follow-up led to Yu’s exposing the real motive behind the proposal—i.e., to benefit one particular ex-president.  She asked Yu to confirm if former presidents are unable to give advice without being provided the privileges the bill would endow them with. Yu admitted they are still able to do so, but gave as example former president Duterte, describing him as “kawawa” (pitiful), since he would attend “speaking engagements” and “meetings” without any staff or security to “assist” and “accompany” him.

Did the lawmakers behind the bill consult any living former president if they “even want” these benefits? Yu revealed that they had not—the idea for the bill came about over a “dinner meeting” when Go, former Special Assistant and close aide to Duterte, recounted Duterte’s “pitiful” situation. 

The lawmaker’s references to Duterte and his needs led to the point of the bill’s timing. Constantino asked: “Former president Duterte is not the only former president we have. We have had a lot in the past. They didn’t seem to have any problems with their security detail and their life after the presidency. So why should it be a concern for the Filipino people now?” Yu’s response again specified Duterte, who has “many enemies” after his term.  

Constantino then recalled a major criticism of the bill, which she noted was expressed early enough about the Senate version, how it was out of touch with the national situation affecting the majority of Filipinos: “It’s tone-deaf. Naawa ho kayo sa mga dating presidente pero tila nagkukulang sa pag-unawa sa at pakikipagsimpatiya sa pinagdadaanan ng milyon-milyong Pilipino, (You pity former presidents but seemingly lack understanding of and sympathy for what millions of Filipinos experience) those who are grappling, as we speak, with harsh realities. You’re talking about high food prices, runaway inflation to some, the transport woes this country has, and yet here you are, trying to make life better for a chosen few.” 

Yu deflected the point raised by Constantino as “not related,” explaining that other laws would address these issues.

Hopefully, journalists will find themselves united on one side about something as audaciously offensive as this proposed law. Constantino’s direct language expressed what many feel about most ex-Presidents, most of whom voters will not count as “kawawa.” 

Media should turn around and create space and time to talk back to the minions of an ex-President who helped them hold public office.