The Barzaga Suspension: Can Fairness Survive in a Country Where Lugaw Is Warmer Than Congress?

*Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD, DM

It began in the gentlest way, with my daughter Juliana Rizalhea slipping her hand into mine and asking if we could go down for lugaw. She said it calmly, her voice free of the politics and noise that fill my days. At fifteen, she reads history the way others scroll their phones, and she speaks about governance and philosophy with a maturity far beyond her age. Yet in moments like this, she is simply my daughter—seeking warmth and comfort from a bowl of rice porridge on an ordinary Quezon City evening.
 
The lugawan near our condominium has always felt like an honest part of Manila—untouched by the theatrics of power. The vendor stirred his large pot with practiced ease, releasing the familiar scent of ginger and softened rice. Around us sat construction workers still coated in dust, students flipping through notes, mothers soothing sleepy toddlers. Lugaw, in all its simplicity, has always carried a quiet fairness. It does not ask who you voted for or what party you support. It warms everyone equally.
 
We sat on old plastic stools full of scratches that wobbled just enough to remind us we were human. For a brief moment, everything felt peaceful — steam rising, city lights humming, the world briefly forgetting its chaos.
 
Then the radio crackled.
 
The announcer reported the sixty-day suspension of Congressman Barzaga, and the atmosphere subtly shifted. Then came the harsher details — fellow lawmakers mocking him, branding him “abnormal,” “mentally unstable,” “unfit.” It wasn’t discipline being described. It was humiliation disguised as governance.
 
I stared into my bowl of lugaw, struck by the contrast. The warmth in my hands felt honest. The words on the radio felt cold and calculated.
 
Because if we are to be fair, Barzaga is indeed unusual.
 
He moves as though his thoughts run faster than his feet can follow.
He gestures with wild emphasis, sometimes comedic, sometimes chaotic.
He speaks with sarcasm sharp enough to slice through pleasantries.
He takes selfies inside the plenary as if it were a tourist spot.
He goes live on Facebook at dawn, at midnight, while walking, while pacing, sometimes breathless.
He posts dramatic reels, jarring photos, and alarming captions.
 
His personality is eccentric, overwhelming, unpredictable.
 
To some, he is entertaining.
To others, he is irritating.
To his critics, he is “abnormal.”
 
But eccentricity is not immorality.
Expressiveness is not unethical.
Sarcasm is not sedition.
And being different is not being deranged.
 
And so I found myself asking:
If all these actions from other lawmakers did not merit suspension, what standard was used to judge Barzaga?
Who decided that sarcasm was more dangerous than corruption?
Who decided that hyperactivity was more unfit than hypocrisy?
Is the yardstick of Congress shaped by principle — or by convenience?
 
Because the history inside that institution is not clean.
 
There was a lawmaker who slapped a Sergeant-at-Arms inside the House — yet he was never branded mentally unstable.
There were lawmakers who openly associated with groups aligned with the CPP–NPA–NDF — yet no ethics complaint followed.
There were legislators who entertained Mindanao separatism — yet their mental fitness was never questioned.
There were those with domestic violence accusations — yet the chamber remained silent.
And today, there are lawmakers deeply entangled in billion-peso budget insertions, flood control anomalies, ghost projects, and manipulated biddings — yet they move around the plenary untouched, unsuspended, unquestioned.
 
So again — what was abnormal?
Barzaga’s gestures?
Or the system protecting those far more dangerous?
 
My sympathy toward Barzaga does not mean I support his call for President Bongbong Marcos to resign. I do not. I do not endorse the tone of his speeches or the theatrical extremes of his posts. Sympathy is not agreement. Fairness is not allegiance. And justice cannot be conditional on who we personally approve of.
 
As an educator, I must see beyond personalities and into the architecture of events. If I allow my judgment to be shaped by personal preference instead of principle, I betray my role — not as a scholar, but as someone responsible for guiding young minds who deserve honesty, not bias. My task is not to echo noise but to understand its source, its consequences, and the systems that allow it to thrive.
 
Later that night, surrounded by her books, Juliana Rizalhea asked me why Congress punished someone for being different while others who did damage were left untouched. Her clarity revealed something many adults overlook:
Selective justice is the most dangerous kind of injustice.
 
And yet, as I reflected deeper, another uncomfortable truth emerged:
I cannot fully blame every congressman who voted for Barzaga’s suspension.
 
Politics is not a temple of pure principles.
Politics is a jungle.
And in the political jungle, survival is oxygen.
 
Many who voted for the suspension may have disagreed with it privately, but inside those walls, every vote carries a cost. A wrong move can result in committee removals, budget denial, political isolation, retaliation from alliances, or the end of one’s ability to deliver projects for their district.
 
And so, painfully yet honestly, I admit:
It is the system — not merely the individuals — that pushed them toward that vote.
 
A system built on:
• political manipulation
• political blackmail
• political survival
• political self-preservation
• political loyalty tests
• political fear
• political necessity
 
Because in our political landscape, a congressman who votes with conscience may return home empty-handed — unable to bring infrastructure, scholarships, medical assistance, or livelihood funds to their constituents.
 
The people suffer for the representative’s courage.
 
This is how a broken system perpetuates broken decisions.
 
Barzaga became an easy target not because he was the guiltiest — but because he was the safest to punish.
Not because his offense was the worst — but because his behavior was the easiest to weaponize.
Not because he was dangerous — but because he was different.
 
And in such a system, difference is unforgivable.
Difference is inconvenient.
Difference is punished.
 
This is why the question arises:
Can his suspension be questioned before the Supreme Court?
The answer is clear: Yes.
And perhaps it must.
 
Because when an institution punishes eccentricity but protects corruption,
when it mocks a man’s behavior but shields true wrongdoing,
the judiciary becomes the last safeguard of fairness.
 
Much later, as I looked at the city from our window, I thought again of that bowl of lugaw. Warm, honest, comforting — everything our institutions should aspire to be.
 
Before sleeping, I checked on Juliana. She was curled up peacefully, her books neatly stacked beside her bed. And in that quiet moment, I felt the weight of the future she will inherit.
 
And so I challenge those who celebrated Barzaga’s punishment simply because they dislike him:
 
If being sarcastic is a sin,
but stealing is a strategy —
what are we defending?
 
If hyperactivity deserves suspension,
but corruption deserves silence —
what kind of morality is that?
 
If eccentricity is abnormal,
but betrayal of public trust is normal —
who is truly unfit?
 
And if you accept punishment based not on wrongdoing
but on personality,
ask yourself this:
 
What will you do when the system uses the same standard
against someone who speaks for you?
 
Because if this is the fairness we embrace,
then perhaps the last remaining place
where justice still feels human
is in a humble bowl of lugaw
shared by a single father and his daughter
on a night when the nation quietly forgot
what fairness looks like.
 
I refuse to raise Juliana in that kind of country.
And I refuse to stay silent
while convenience replaces principle
and ridicule replaces reason.
 
Fairness must stand on principle —
or it will not stand at all.

 ____

 *About the author:

Dr. Rodolfo “John” Ortiz Teope is a distinguished Filipino academic, public intellectual, and advocate for civic education and public safety, whose work spans local academies and international security circles. With a career rooted in teaching, research, policy, and public engagement, he bridges theory and practice by making meaningful contributions to academic discourse, civic education, and public policy. Dr. Teope is widely respected for his critical scholarship in education, management, economics, doctrine development, and public safety; his grassroots involvement in government and non-government organizations; his influential media presence promoting democratic values and civic consciousness; and his ethical leadership grounded in Filipino nationalism and public service. As a true public intellectual, he exemplifies how research, advocacy, governance, and education can work together in pursuit of the nation’s moral and civic mission.

VIEWS: 1.07M

Can the President Finish His Term Until 2028?

 *Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD, DM

“The best way out of a problem is through it.” -- Anonymous

That line first entered my life when I was in Grade 4, printed on a porcelain display that sat quietly on my sister Ate Minda’s study table in our humble home at 17-C 1^st Avenue Manggahan, Barangay Bagong Lipunan ng Crame Quezon City. I did reflect on its meaning then, but something about it struck me deeply. As the years passed, as I entered public service, and as I studied governance and witnessed the storms that leaders endure, those words resurfaced again and again. And as I grew older, they revealed themselves not as advice, but as truth.

Years later, that porcelain message found its purpose when a retired General—once my student—called me. His voice carried urgency:

“Sir Dok Jhan, a mayor is drowning politically. He trusts only you to tell him the truth.”

When I met the mayor, I found a man besieged by storms coming from every direction. His municipal hall had devolved into a tangle of shifting loyalties and whispered betrayals. Relatives who campaigned for him now demanded positions and influence. Allies defected when self-interest called. A councilor facing corruption accusations released a dramatic audiotape recording blaming him to save himself. A scandal involving the city engineer—where he had no involvement—was pinned on him to create a narrative of incompetence.

Then came the wound that pierced him the most: a family member publicly hinted that he once had connections to illegal substances. The remark spread like wildfire, turning into political ammunition overnight. And as this unfolded, a political opponent quietly mobilized barangay leaders for a Recall Election, gathering signatures to unseat him.

One evening, the mayor asked me, “How do I fight all of them at once?”

I remembered the porcelain quote from childhood and told him:

“The best way out of a problem is through it.”

I explained that he could not win by reacting to everything. He had to walk through the storm—fix his house, fix himself, and let his work defend him better than words ever could.

He listened.

And then he acted.

He refocused on real governance—strengthening his town’s business climate, launching programs for the poor, tightening procurement policies, and intensifying peace and order initiatives. But what saved him was his courage to confront internal rot. He replaced compromised department heads, filed cases against corrupt officials, distanced himself from problematic relatives, disciplined his own child who served in office, and even requested the suspension of his own brother-in-law, the Vice Mayor.

His spouse—maliciously targeted by rumors—left local affairs entirely and focused on business elsewhere. And when it came to a sibling who attacked him publicly during council sessions, he chose reconciliation over retaliation and healed the wounds privately.

He survived not because the storm stopped, but because he became stronger than it. He walked through the problem, and in doing so he earned back public trust.

Today, the President stands in a storm almost identical to the mayor’s—except his storm is national, louder, and far more complex.

He faces controversies involving people close to him, magnified by power brokers eager to weaponize them. Old remarks from within his own circle continue to haunt him, crafted into narratives by those who seek to weaken his leadership before 2028. His political coalition shows fractures as former allies—particularly those with strong digital machinery—now attack him daily.

The destabilization coming from groups once aligned with him is the most potent threat he faces. These insiders understand how to weaponize narratives, fuel anger, and shake institutional confidence. Their storytelling frames him as weak, indecisive, and disconnected. Their networks mobilize emotions quickly, and their messaging spreads across digital spaces faster than official communication ever could.

In the legislature, quiet power struggles multiply. Alliances tremble. The political class watches closely, sensing shifts in the wind. The bureaucracy experiences silent hesitation as some officials await which faction will dominate the coming years. Meanwhile, the military remains professional and neutral—perhaps the most stabilizing force preventing a total collapse.

But the economy, more than anything else, threatens political survival. Ordinary Filipinos can tolerate scandal. They can endure political drama. But they cannot endure a kitchen that grows emptier by the day. Inflation and food prices weigh heavily on households. And in our country, it is always the condition of the dinner table—not the speeches in Congress—that determines a president’s fate.

Despite all this, the President’s administration has not collapsed. Institutional foundations remain intact. The public’s frustration is real, but not yet the kind that leads to mass uprising. The elite has fractured, but not fatally. The military is stable. The bureaucracy still functions.

But stability is not the same as strength.

Survival is not the same as leadership.

Continuance is not the same as control.

So can the President finish his term until 2028?

Yes—but only if he is willing to walk through the storm, not around it.

He must confront the corruption allegations close to his circle.

He must confront the fractures in his coalition.

He must confront the digital destabilization from former allies.

He must confront the economic pain in the Filipino household.

He must confront the truth within his own leadership.

He cannot merely endure the storm—he must rise within it.

The mayor survived because he confronted what needed to be confronted, even when it was painful. The President now stands before the same crossroads, holding the same choice. His survival will not depend on the enemies shouting from afar, but on the courage he shows toward those standing closest to him.

History always asks the same question to leaders caught in a storm:

Will you walk around it—or through it?

As I once told that mayor, guided by a porcelain wisdom I learned as a child:

“The best way out of a problem is through it.”

And when a leader finally understands that truth, he discovers there are no shortcuts around responsibility, no detours around truth, and no lasting triumph for those who run away.

 

Only those who walk into the storm with courage

ever walk out of it transformed—

and worthy of the future they hope to reach.

____

 *About the author:

Dr. Rodolfo “John” Ortiz Teope is a distinguished Filipino academic, public intellectual, and advocate for civic education and public safety, whose work spans local academies and international security circles. With a career rooted in teaching, research, policy, and public engagement, he bridges theory and practice by making meaningful contributions to academic discourse, civic education, and public policy. Dr. Teope is widely respected for his critical scholarship in education, management, economics, doctrine development, and public safety; his grassroots involvement in government and non-government organizations; his influential media presence promoting democratic values and civic consciousness; and his ethical leadership grounded in Filipino nationalism and public service. As a true public intellectual, he exemplifies how research, advocacy, governance, and education can work together in pursuit of the nation’s moral and civic mission.

VIEWS: 1.34M

Currency Reform as a Weapon: Forcing the Corrupt Out of Their Holes

 *Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD, DM

I remember watching a film years ago—The Dark Knight (2008). There’s an unforgettable scene where Gotham’s mob bosses, men who thought they were untouchable, discovered that the Joker had piled up their billions of illegal cash into a towering mountain… and set it on fire.

As the flames devoured the bills, the mob bosses did not panic because a criminal was on the loose—

they panicked because their hidden money was gone.

They did not fear the law.

They did not fear the police.

They feared the loss of wealth they could never explain.

That scene stayed with me, not because it was dramatic, but because it captured a fundamental truth I have seen repeatedly in public service and political analysis:

The corrupt have one true weakness: the money they hide.

Not the law.

Not jail.

Not public outrage.

But the cash they cannot deposit, cannot declare, and cannot show to anyone—not even to themselves in daylight.

Just like those mob bosses in the movie, corrupt officials in real life build secret kingdoms around their vaults, safes, and condo storage units. Their stolen wealth sleeps in the dark.

And that is why one bold policy can terrify them more than any investigation or Senate hearing:

a total currency replacement ordered by the President.

A Policy Designed NOT to Punish the Poor—but to Corner the Corrupt

Ordinary people will exchange their money without hesitation.

The vendor with ₱10,000 in her tindahan has nothing to fear.

The nurse who saved ₱30,000 from overtime shifts has nothing to fear.

The OFW family who stores cash for emergencies has nothing to fear.

But the corrupt?

The ones with ₱80 million in a secret vault, ₱200 million hidden in a condo, ₱500 million sitting in sealed balikbayan boxes?

They will panic.

They will shake.

They will run out of excuses.

Because a currency overhaul forces the corrupt to bring out the very cash they worked so hard to hide.

It is the one audit they cannot bribe, stall, influence, or escape.

Countries Have Done This—And It Shook the Criminal Underground

This is not theory. It is historical fact.

1. India (2016): A Shock That Exposed Black Money

In 2016, India demonetized its ₹500 and ₹1,000 notes overnight. Millions of corrupt officials, tax evaders, and syndicate operators scrambled to exchange the cash they had hidden for years. Families who lived simply were unaffected, but the corrupt were caught unprepared.

Result: billions in unaccounted cash surfaced, leading to investigations and arrests (Reddy & Kumar, 2017).

2. Nigeria (2022–2023): Politicians Panicked

When Nigeria restructured its currency, powerful political families and syndicates panicked. They could not deposit their hoarded naira without revealing their illegal wealth.

Result: the policy exposed politically connected criminals and forced the underground economy to surface (Onyuma, 2023).

3. Myanmar (1987): A Brutal Reset

The government canceled certain banknotes overnight. Students protested—not because of the poor—but because corrupt elites and black-market traffickers lost mountains of hidden cash instantly.

Result: organized crime networks were destabilized, and billions in illicit cash evaporated.

4. Soviet Union (1991): Exposing Black-Market Elites

A sudden currency reform targeted the “shadow economy” that flourished outside the state. When the USSR changed its banknotes, smugglers, illicit traders, and corrupt officials were unable to justify their hidden wealth.

Result: the reform revealed massive corruption—and destroyed fortunes that were kept only in cash.

These examples prove one thing:

Currency change is not just economic policy; it is a weapon.

When used correctly, it forces criminals and corrupt officials into the light—whether they like it or not.

Let Us Call Currency Reform What It Truly Is:

A Silent, Nationwide, Legalized Ambush on Corruption**

This is not a Senate hearing full of actors.

This is not a committee “investigation” that ends in nothing.

This is not a press conference full of righteous speeches.

This is an economic chokehold—

a trap that closes quietly, automatically, and relentlessly.

Exchange your money and expose yourself.

Or keep your money and lose everything.

It is the simplest but most devastating accountability tool ever devised.

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas already requires explanations for large cash transactions (BSP, 2021). A full-currency overhaul magnifies this rule to the national level. It weaponizes transparency. It turns every corrupt official’s secret vault into a ticking time bomb.

The Corrupt Fear This More Than Prison

And they should.

The truth is, many corrupt officials do not fear jail.

They fear public humiliation.

They fear exposure.

They fear losing the money that gave them power.

Currency reform targets all three.

• The fishball vendor walks to the bank with calm.
• The teacher exchanges her savings with dignity.
• The janitor converts his hard-earned cash without worry.

But the corrupt?

They will sweat.

They will hide.

They will try to launder—but fail.

They will try to bribe—but the system leaves no room for bribery.

They will try to lie—but the numbers will betray them.

Just like the mob bosses in The Dark Knight, they will watch their power disappear—not through violence, not through politics, but through the simple act of changing bills.

A Nation Cannot Rise While Its Wealth Sleeps in Secret Safes

Billions stolen from flood control projects, public works, agriculture, health, and education lie dormant in hidden rooms.

Money that could have saved lives…

Money that could have built classrooms…

Money that could have funded hospitals…

Instead, it sits uselessly in the dark.

Currency reform is not only economic—it is moral.

It is a form of national justice.

Final Call: Let the Honest Walk with Calm. Let the Corrupt Walk with Terror.

I have seen corruption up close:

its arrogance,

its entitlement,

its lies,

its hidden vaults.

But I have also seen what happens when the system finds a way to corner them.

Currency reform is that corner.

It is the economic weapon they cannot escape.

It is the cleansing fire they cannot extinguish.

Let the poor exchange their bills in peace.

Let the honest sleep soundly.

Let the corrupt tremble.

Because in their trembling, the truth finally comes out.

References

Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. (2021). Anti-Money Laundering/Combating the Financing of Terrorism guidelines. BSP Publications.

Onyuma, S. O. (2023). Currency restructuring and its effects on informal economies: Comparative lessons from developing countries. Journal of Economic Policy Studies, 14(2), 45–60.

Reddy, Y. V., & Kumar, A. (2017). India’s demonetization experience and its implications on corruption and cash-based economies. Asian Economic Review, 59(3), 301–320.

____

 *About the author:

Dr. Rodolfo “John” Ortiz Teope is a distinguished Filipino academic, public intellectual, and advocate for civic education and public safety, whose work spans local academies and international security circles. With a career rooted in teaching, research, policy, and public engagement, he bridges theory and practice by making meaningful contributions to academic discourse, civic education, and public policy. Dr. Teope is widely respected for his critical scholarship in education, management, economics, doctrine development, and public safety; his grassroots involvement in government and non-government organizations; his influential media presence promoting democratic values and civic consciousness; and his ethical leadership grounded in Filipino nationalism and public service. As a true public intellectual, he exemplifies how research, advocacy, governance, and education can work together in pursuit of the nation’s moral and civic mission.

VIEWS: 2.64M