By Adolfo Quizon Paglinawan

 

Part 17:  Is it worth saving a weak, incompetent and utterly corrupt president?

Tensions have risen as Senate President Pro Tempore and Blue-Ribbon Committee chair Ping Lacson criticizes the ‘minority report’ from Senators Imee Marcos and Rodante Marcoleta, as a symbol of disrespect calling it ‘trash.’

Melissa Hubahib Loja, a political analyst and an international law expert, said the Senate should not dismiss the minority report on the investigation of the flood control scam, since doing so runs counter to the history, traditions, and ethical framework of the Philippine Senate.

While the majority report narrowed responsibility to specific implementing units and relied heavily on post-validation by executive agencies, the minority report argued that irregularities were systemic and rooted in how flood control funds were programmed, released, and overseen.

According to the dissenting senators, the issue extended beyond missing structures and involved patterns of weak oversight, possible fund diversion, and political influence, including during the budget approval and fund release stages. The minority report also questioned the methodology used to dismiss hundreds of alleged ghost projects, warning that reliance on paperwork and after-the-fact validation could obscure accountability.

According to Loja, the proper response to minority reports is engagement rather than dismissal, especially in investigations involving alleged large-scale misuse of public funds.

Chart of Flood Control Program from Rob Rances post.

In statecraft, which is managing reality of government towards advancing a country’s interests, being in the majority does not equate with monopoly of knowledge and good intentions.

Short of accusing Lacson of lack of institutional memory, she said “Consider the minority report led by Senator Joker Arroyo regarding the fertilizer fund scam. Lacson was part of the Senate when that unsigned minority report was “welcomed” by Blue Ribbon chair Senator Gordon. Consider too the minority reports on the Sugar Scam and the NBN-ZTE Scandal.”

Loja hinted at Lacson’s irrelevance to the signs of the times:

“Rather than belittle minority reports or fear them out of insecurity, Lacson ought to be receptive especially to views that are inconvenient to those in power as minority reports have historically played a crucial role in shaping legislative outcomes (and executive fiats), either by broadening the scope of investigations or narrowing findings to sharpen accountability.”

Let us examine our history on how the minority report during the Philippine Commissions of 1899 and 1900 served a monumental impact by saving what could have hundreds of thousands of Filipino lives as it lobbied against continued martial law over the Philippines.

Ending the Filipino-American War

The first Philippine Commission appointed by U.S. President William McKinley in 1899 was headed by Dr. Jacob Gould Schurman, the president of Cornell University, to investigate conditions in the Philippines after its acquisition from Spain, recommending a gradual transition to civil government with autonomous local rule and public education, concluding Filipinos weren’t ready for immediate independence.

It also recommended a form of government with limited Filipino participation, and cautious delay in replacing the influence of military officials especially in the provinces. On the other hand, the “minority” perspective argued for the prompt transition from military rule to a civilian government.

In the historic debate, these were the key perspectives forming the minority opinion regarding the continuation of US military rule:

• Failure to Pacify and Alienation: Critics asserted that the military government’s “heavy-handed” tactics, including the burning of villages and imprisonment of suspected insurgents, were prolonging the Philippine-American War and fomenting the alienation of the population.
• Contrasting with “Benevolent Assimilation”: The continued military rule was in contradiction with President McKinley’s policy of “benevolent assimilation,” which was supposed fast-track peace and order and the formation of a civil government, not prolonged martial law.
• Civilian Supremacy and Constitutional Rights: Anti-imperialists back in the US took the position that military rule over a territory not formally part of the US was unconstitutional and that the Philippines should be prepared for independence rather than held as a colony. Even those willing to cooperate with the U.S. wanted the army out of civil administration.
• Racist Underpinnings: While not always a minority view among Americans at the time, some recognized that the racial prejudices held by American soldiers made military rule excessively brutal.
• Filipino Perspective: The minority opinion essentially argued for a swift transition to civilian rule to stabilize the region, arguing that the military was better suited for fighting the war, not governing the nativos.

Mark Twain

One of the prominent opponents of American imperialism in the Philippines, advocating for Filipino self-determination and criticizing the U.S. annexation, was Mark Twain (born Samuel Langhorne Clemens).

Having once supported America’s growing empire, admitting that he wanted to see the “American eagle to go screaming into the Pacific”, Twain, changed his mind after he saw the true intentions and consequences of imperialism, becoming a full-fledged anti-imperialist himself.

Twain confessed to his enlightenment, “I have read carefully the treaty of Paris, and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem. And so, I am (now) opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land.”

Using his poetry and writings, like the satirical “A Defence of General Funston,” to condemn the Philippine-American War and U.S. colonial policies, he argued that conquering the Philippines contradicted American ideals, suggesting Filipinos should be prepared for independence, not subjugation.

Jacob Schurman, Mark Twain and William Howard Taft

Filipinos adopts hardline

Our predecessors had a hand in the minority opinion at that time.

Emilio Aguinaldo sent Colonel Manuel Arguelles as emissary to the Schurman Commission, with a letter from Apolinario Mabini, head of the revolutionary Cabinet, expressing a desire to seek peace and a cessation of hostilities, but  requesting concrete information on the governmental role Filipinos would play.

President McKinley responded in manner that on hindsight would be reasonable given then prevailing intensity between American and Filipino troops as he earnestly agreed to  cessation of bloodshed, with these specifics:

“(The) government of the Philippine Islands shall consist of a Governor-General appointed by the President; Cabinet appointed by the Governor-General; a general advisory council elected by the people; the qualifications of electors to be carefully considered and determined; and the governor-general to have absolute veto. Judiciary strong and independent; principal judges appointed by the President. The cabinet and judges to be chosen from natives and Americans, or both, having regard to fitness.”

But even if McKinley’s proposal met the nod of the majority, revolutionary cabinet, Aguinaldo removed the revolutionary cabinet and Mabini who dissented. In a subsequent of the Revolutionary Congress and military commanders, the dictator announced the formation of a new “peace cabinet” led by Pedro Paterno and Felipe Buencamino.

At this point, General Antonio Luna, field commander of the revolutionary army, arrested Paterno, Buencamino and most of his cabinet. Arguelles was expelled from the army, and sentenced to twelve years of imprisonment. (This scene was faithfully relived in the movie Heneral Luna.)

Following these developments, Aguinaldo withdrew his support from the ‘peace’ advocates, and Mabini and the revolutionary cabinet  returned to power.

Paterno and Buencamino were unacceptable to the revolutionary minority, particularly the radical, pro-independence faction led by General Luna—not really because of intransigence but because the two were viewed as ‘Americanistas’ (collaborators) and ‘oportunistas’ (turncoats or balimbings) who would betray the revolution for their own gain because of previous dalliance with foreigners.

Emilio Aguinaldo, Apolinario Mabini and Heneral Antonio Luna

Taft Commission

On March 16, 1900, MacKinley issued an executive order establishing the Second Philippine Commission to be headed by William Howard Taft. While the First Commission (Schurman) recommended a gradual shift from military control, the Second Commission (Taft) was established expediting the assumption of legislative powers from the military, paving the way for the end of the Philippine-American War and favoring instead a faster transition to civil governance or independence.

In short, the US president gave more weight to the “minority opinion” of American anti-imperialists, some military personnel, and Filipino leaders who argued that prolonged military rule was counterproductive, morally wrong, or unnecessarily oppressive.

On April 7, 1900, McKinley issued detailed instructions to the commission, directing it to thoroughly investigate social, economic, and political conditions in the islands and to devise a suitable form of civil government. A full report was submitted to McKinley by August.

By September 1, the Commission took over legislation, footnoting the appointment of the first Filipino members—Benito Legarda and Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera—bringing its total composition from five to seven.

On July 4, 1901, civil government was formally inaugurated in Manila, with William Howard Taft, president of the Taft Commission, appointed as the first Civil Governor, supplanting General Arthur MacArthur’s military authority.

Lacson’s obstinacy

The inflexibility that Lacson exhibits as chairman of the Blue-Ribbon Committee manifests more his background as a police officer as an order-taker from a higher controlling force rather than the statecraft of a legislator performing in aid of legislation.

His occasional resorting to exacerbated procedures such as referring to Regional Trial Court just to debunk the notarization of Sgt. Orly Guteza’s written affidavit creates a suspicion that he is under leash by some dark authoritarian influence.

Democracy, rule-of-law, and constitutional mechanisms have faced real challenges under the administration of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. where these values  have been repurposed to dismantle liberal democratic checks and balances. His reckless and arrogant demeanor appears to stem from a belief that he is protected by power, wealth, or a lack of accountability in the system. 

Set against the backdrop of sending 5,000 policemen to Davao City to arrest one suspect in the person of Pastor Apollo Quiboloy and enforcing extrajudicial rendition of former President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court in a foreign country, these odious manifestations of authoritarian influence, not to mention the abuses of citizens’ rights in the hearings conducted by the House of Representative’s QuadCom, TriCom and of late InfraCom, are often cloaked with empty legalese.

Police forces and followers of Quiboloy face off outside the Kingdom  of Jesus Christ compound in Davao City on 26 August. Photo by Cerilo Ebrano | EPA

Indeed, a “legalistic majority”  has arrived at the Philippine Senate with the assumption of the leadership by Vicente Sotto and Lacson, albeit much awkward because they are not lawyers.

Let us apply a litmus test whether our Senate today falls under this context:

• Autocratic Legalism: A condition that arises the majority use sheer numbers to rewrite laws, and restrict civil liberties, all while maintaining a veneer of legality.
• Form over Substance: This legalism prioritizes the “letter of the law” over its spirit, often disregarding the broader democratic norms of justice and fairness.
• Tyranny of the Majority: While democracy requires majority rule, a legalistic majority can lead to where the ruling party operates without compromising with the minority, ignoring their role and rights, and making the opposition’s, or minority’s, ability to challenge them legally or politically difficult.
• Instrumentalization of Law: The law becomes an instrument for consolidating power rather than a framework for limiting it. This often involves rushing through legislation without adequate debate or scrutiny. 

• Constitutional Changes: Using a large enough majority to amend or overhaul the constitution, often dismantling constraints on the executive or legislative power.
• “Majority of the Majority” Rule:  An informal rule used in the U.S. House, known as the Hastert Rule, where the Speaker will not bring a bill to the floor unless a majority of their own party supports it, effectively silencing the opposition and even the minority faction of their own party.
• Supermajority or Rigid Rule Application: Using technicalities and sheer numbers to exclude opposition, as seen in cases where ruling coalitions (locally or as in Hungary and Poland) used their power to systematically weaken democratic institutions.

A healthy democracy balances majority rule with ensuring that a majority cannot permanently or unjustly oppress a minority. A legalistic majority converts legislation to a zero-sum scenario.

Senators Panfilo Lacson, Rodante Marcoleta and Imee Marcos

Conclusion

A minority report in legislation is a formal document submitted by members of a committee who disagree with the majority’s findings, conclusions, or recommendations. It is considered essential to democratic, transparent, and accountable legislative processes, acting as a safeguard against the ‘tyranny of the majority’.

It ensures all viewpoints are officially recorded rather than silenced, allowing alternative perspectives to be documented. They serve as a vital source of information for the broader legislative body (plenary) to consider, sometimes leading to amendments or the rejection of the main report. 

Minority reports can highlight errors, oversights, or potential negative consequences in proposed legislation. It provides a mechanism to challenge the majority’s assumptions, ensuring investigations are thorough and reducing the risk of political interference.

While a minority report is not a universal right, neither is a majority rule an absolute right.

While sometimes criticized as a partisan tool or a sign of disrespect toward committee work, the minority report remains a vital component of a well-functioning democracy, ensuring that, even if outvoted, minority members can contribute to the legislative process.

In sum, Melissa Loja stressed that minority reports do not violate any express or implied rule of the Senate, nor do they constitute an ethical breach.

Instead, she said, attacking them undermines the institution itself.#

Next: When Clowns in Government becomes the Story

The transition from military to civilian rule by the US as envisioned by the minority report, however, was not observed nationwide. Martial law remained in place in the southern Philippines (Mindanao and Sulu) despite the transition to civil government in the northern islands in 1902.

The Moro people was never subdued by the Spanish, but they were incorporated in the sale of the Philippines Islands by Spain to the United States in the 1898 Treaty of Paris, against their assumption that once the Philippines were liberated from the Spanish, they would be self-governing, as evidenced by treaty relations – The Bates-Kiram Treaty of 1899.

But Sulu and its islands were added to the Philippine treaty limits between Spain and the US (without participation of the Sultanate of Sulu) in the Treaty of Washington of 1900 for $100,000.

What the minority report was trying to prevent happened.

Not mindful of General John Smith’s violent experience in Balangiga, Samar in 1901, General Leonard Wood, serving as the military governor of the Moro Province, considered the gathering of around 1,000 men, women, and children at Bud Dajo a threat to American sovereignty, leading to the brutal military action against them.

The Bud Dajo massacre occurred in March 1906, four years after the official end of the Philippine-American War.

The Moro Province, created in 1903, was explicitly placed under a specialized military regime to handle the “intractable” Muslim population, which continued to resist American colonization long after the war in the north ended.

History repeats itself in General John ‘Black Jack’ Pershing in the Bud Bagsak massacre in 1913.

   

Email: contact@asiancenturyph.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/asiancenturyph/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AsianCenturyPH

Substack:

Also read: