Alex Eala, Constitutional Reform and the Politics of Avoiding Accountability

*Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD

I still remember the sound of tennis before I understood its rules. The dull thud of the ball on the court, the hush of the crowd between points, the silence that felt heavier than the racket itself. As a child, I would sit in front of the television watching figures who seemed almost unreal—Björn Borg dismantling opponents with ice-cold calm, Jimmy Connors fighting every point like it was personal survival, Martina Navratilova redefining excellence through relentless discipline. I did not yet understand rankings or tactics, but I understood something instinctively: tennis was honest. You could argue with the screen, complain about calls, or wish for miracles—but when match point ended, so did the argument. The scoreboard told the truth.

That lesson stayed with me.

Years later, watching Alex Eala, that same childhood feeling returned. The same silence before a serve. The same clarity of consequence. The same unforgiving honesty. And suddenly, tennis stopped being just a sport I loved and became a mirror—reflecting not only an athlete’s journey, but the condition of a country.

I am writing this, for now, plainly as a wishful-thinking citizen who still hopes—perhaps stubbornly—that this country can become the honest, accountable nation it keeps promising to be. That is why the story of Alex Eala stays with me—not simply because she wins, but because of how she wins. Alone on a court far from home, bound by rules she did not write, yet fully accountable for every mistake she makes.

There are no loopholes in tennis. The ball is either in or out. The score is mercilessly honest. You cannot delay a loss through motions. You cannot reinterpret a bad serve. You cannot hide behind technicalities. Alex Eala lives inside that clarity. She trains knowing that effort will be exposed, failure will be public, and excuses will be useless. And still—still—she chooses discipline. Still, she chooses integrity. Still, she raises the Philippine flag with humility, as if to remind us that this pride is not borrowed. It is earned.

That quiet courage hurts when contrasted with what we have become at home.

While a young Filipina earns honor through sacrifice, many of our elected officials earn wealth through delay. While Alex respects the rules of the game, corrupt businessmen exploit the rules of governance. While she accepts defeat as a lesson, hoodlums in robes and suits treat accountability as an attack. Our democracy has slowly become a place where losing power is unacceptable, but losing honor is routine.

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on impeachment crystallized this painful reality. What should have been a constitutional process of political accountability was reduced to a technical puzzle—timelines dissected, procedures elevated, substance set aside. Justice did not fail loudly. It failed politely. It failed legally. It failed in a way that left no one personally guilty, yet left the people collectively disappointed. As a sports fan, it felt like watching a match where the scoreboard was ignored and the result decided in a room far from the court.

I am not obsessed with doctrine, but I recognize patterns. When accountability repeatedly dies by technicality, the problem is no longer interpretation—it is design. Our Constitution, noble in intention, has developed weaknesses in practice: gaps where delay thrives, spaces where power hides, corners where corruption waits patiently. These weaknesses are not accidental. They are exploited deliberately by those who understand that in our system, time is the most valuable currency.

But there is another truth we can no longer avoid. Our Constitution is also struggling to keep pace with globalization.

Alex Eala’s own development is proof of how the modern world works. Sports today thrive in an open, global ecosystem—international academies, foreign coaches, cross-border competition, global sponsorships, and unrestricted investment in talent. No serious sporting nation limits excellence by fearing foreign participation. We celebrate it because it works. We cheer when a Filipino athlete trains abroad, absorbs global standards, and competes with the world’s best.

Yet in our economy, we hesitate.

We still cling to restrictive ownership rules born from a different era, as if capital, technology, and expertise are threats rather than tools. Many countries have already amended their constitutions or laws to allow 100 percent foreign ownership in key sectors, recognizing that openness is not surrender but adaptation. In sports, we understand this instinctively. In governance and the economy, we resist it—at great cost.

A Constitution that allows accountability to be neutralized by procedure and opportunity to be repelled by fear does double damage. It protects incompetence and drives away progress. Reform, therefore, is not betrayal. It is survival.

Alex Eala does not benefit from time. She races against it. Youth fades. Opportunity narrows. Every missed training session is a loss that can never be recovered. That is why her victories feel clean and emotional. She pays the price upfront—in sweat, loneliness, and discipline. Our leaders, by contrast, postpone payment indefinitely. They appeal, reconsider, reinterpret, and reframe until accountability grows old and collapses from exhaustion—and opportunity quietly leaves.

I have sat in rooms where urgency was theatrical but action was postponed. I have seen budgets praised in daylight and twisted in darkness. I have watched democracy turn into performance—noisy, dramatic, hollow. And then I watch Alex, silent between points, eyes focused, breathing steady, and I remember Borg’s calm, Connors’ fire, Navratilova’s relentless preparation. I am reminded that greatness is not influence. It is restraint. Not power, but responsibility.

This is why constitutional change can no longer be dismissed as impatience or ambition. It is about aligning our political and economic systems with moral and global reality. A Constitution that allows impeachment to be neutralized by procedure does not protect democracy; it numbs it. A Constitution that resists globalization does not protect Filipinos; it limits them.

Alex Eala competes in a system where rules are strict but fair, and opportunity is global. Our political system is strict on the powerless, flexible for the connected, and fearful of openness. That imbalance teaches the young a dangerous lesson—that integrity is optional, that shortcuts are smarter, that honesty is admirable but impractical. And yet Alex stands there, disproving that lie with every match she plays.

Every time she wins, she tells the world that Filipinos can succeed without cheating and without hiding. Every time our institutions fail to hold power accountable or adapt to a changing world, we tell ourselves the opposite. One story builds character. The other erodes it.

In the end, this is not really about tennis. It is about accountability and courage in a global age. On the court, the score ends the argument. In government, the argument is often used to erase the score and delay reform.

The politics of avoiding accountability—and avoiding the world—is not an accident. It is a choice. And until we confront that choice, our cleanest victories will continue to happen far from home, on courts where excuses do not work, borders do not limit excellence, delay does not help, and accountability cannot be appealed.

_____

*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: 1.97M

The Debt of Memory: Why Education, Not an Anti-Dynasty Law, Is the Only Cure for the Vindictive Return

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

The memory of 1988 still carries the scent of damp pavement and the heavy, electric hum of a nation trying to find its footing. Back then, I was just a college student living under my parents’ roof in San Mateo, Rizal. My days were measured by the long, rhythmic rattle of the jeepney as it wound its way from the quiet foothills of our town toward the chaotic, ink-stained streets of the University Belt in Manila. I was a student leader then, an activist with a heart full of fire and a knapsack heavy with flyers. We walked the line between the suburban peace of Rizal and the feverish protests of Mendiola, believing with every fiber of our being that the world could be made new.

In the U-Belt, we shouted for systemic change, but in Rizal, I watched that change take a quiet, human form. That year, the people of my home province did something that felt like a miracle to a young activist’s eyes. They chose Reynaldo R. San Juan Sr., a man whose name lacked the gilded shine of Malacañang, over Vic Sumulong, the nephew of the sitting President. I remember the hushed conversations in the markets of San Mateo—the way people spoke of "San Juan" not as a king, but as a chance. It was a heartbreak for the powerful, but it was a triumph for the soul of the common man. In that moment, I realized that power is not a family heirloom; it is a fragile thing, lent by the tired hands of the people, and it can be reclaimed as quietly as a departing tide.

That spirit followed me across the map of my own life. I think of San Juan City, where I spent my high school years walking the hallowed halls of Aquinas School. Back then, the name Estrada was synonymous with the soil itself, a cinematic fixture that felt as permanent as the streets I walked as a teenager. But even there, the air eventually shifted. The transition to the Zamoras was a poignant reminder that no matter how storied a name, the audience eventually stops believing in the legend when the reality no longer matches the script.

My heart, however, has always been anchored elsewhere—in the rugged, salt-sprayed shores of Catanduanes, the root of my family, the Teopes. I grew up hearing the stories of the island, and I watched from afar as the Cua family held the horizon for twenty long years. In 2025, when Patrick Alain “Doc” Azanza—an independent soul with limited machinery—stood against those towering walls and won, it felt like the first deep breath a drowning man takes. It shattered the cruel myth that some families are born to rule while others, like mine, are born only to watch. Even in Las Piñas, a place distant from my life in Rizal but near in its struggle, I hear the same echo: the Villar machinery finally meeting a sunset it did not expect. It is a national symphony of people simply saying, "Enough."

But as I look back, I see a new, more sorrowful song being sung by those who have been unseated. We see them now—the fallen dynasties sitting in their darkened halls, wrapping themselves in the tattered cloak of victimhood. They tell us they are being "suppressed" by the present administration. They frame their return not as a quest for service, but as a crusade for survival, weaving a story where their family is the target of a systematic "persecution." Having been an activist in the U-Belt when real suppression meant something far more dangerous, I find their rehearsed sorrow difficult to swallow. They trade their silk robes for sackcloth, hoping we will mistake their fear of accountability for a fight for our well-being.

This is why we must understand a fundamental truth: a defeated dynasty must never be allowed to return. When a family that has treated public office as a private inheritance is finally unseated, their eventual comeback is rarely an act of humble service—it is an act of restoration and revenge. Once they regain the throne, they do not reconcile; they consolidate. They move with surgical precision to erase the names of those who dared to defeat them and dismantle every reform that flourished in their absence. Their return sends a chilling message to the soul of the voter: that their bravery was temporary, and the old masters always win. It poisons the well of courage, teaching our children that it is safer to be silent than to be free.

When they cry "harassment," they hope we will forget the years of stagnation. But when a leader is held to account for public funds, that is not harassment—it is justice finding its way home. I have often been asked why I do not support a law to ban these families. It is because I still carry the idealism of that student leader from 1988. I believe in the sacredness of the human heart and its ability to learn. A law is a cold, metallic thing; it cannot teach a young voter the value of their own dignity.

Instead of passing an anti-dynasty law, we should be pouring our energy into the classroom. We need to integrate Voters Education into our curriculum starting from Grade 1. We must teach our children, from the moment they can read, how a single wrong choice in leadership can systematically destroy a nation. We must equip them to evaluate a servant’s heart over a master’s surname. An informed voter does not need a law to tell them who to reject; they possess the internal compass to do it themselves. Education is the only key that can truly unlock the gates of these political fortresses.

We must teach our children that voting is an act of love for their neighbor, not a debt to be paid to a local patron. We must show them how to distinguish the true cry of the oppressed from the rehearsed sob of the elite. Allowing a defeated dynasty to return because we feel sorry for their "suppression" is not kindness—it is amnesia.

History is a persistent teacher. I learned that on the jeepney rides from San Mateo to the U-Belt, in the classrooms of Aquinas, and in the blood of my Teope ancestors. Let us not dim the light of progress by falling for the myths of those who miss their titles more than they miss the people. The people have spoken before, and their voices were beautiful. Let us protect that beauty. Because once we forget why we chose to be free, we invite the chains to return, disguised as an old, familiar friend.

_____

*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: 1.20M

Supreme Court Justices Are Not Gods: Why Questioning the Court Is an Act of Democracy

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

I have sat in classrooms where students wrestle with the idea of authority and in council halls where decisions affect real communities with real consequences. In both spaces, one lesson keeps returning: power is healthiest when it is questioned. The moment authority becomes untouchable, it stops serving the people and starts serving itself. Democracy does not die in chaos; it dies in quiet acceptance.

There are moments in a republic when silence becomes more dangerous than dissent. This is one of those moments.

Senate President Tito Sotto is right to sound the alarm. Impeachment is not a favor granted to Congress. It is a constitutional power explicitly and exclusively lodged in the legislative branch. It is political by design—not because it is partisan, but because it is meant to be exercised by elected representatives who answer directly to the people. When the judiciary intrudes into this clearly political process, the issue is no longer about judicial review. It becomes judicial overreach—and that is precisely how constitutional crises begin.

Let us be clear: questioning the Supreme Court is not an attack on democracy. It is democracy in action. No branch of government is immune from scrutiny. Not the Executive. Not Congress. And certainly not the judiciary. Accountability applies to everyone. Justices are not gods; they are public officials with defined powers, bound by the same Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

What Senator Sotto has done is neither reckless nor inflammatory. It is an assertion of constitutional duty. He is defending the separation of powers—the invisible architecture that keeps our democratic house from collapsing. To remain silent when that balance is disturbed is not prudence; it is abdication. Leadership is not measured by comfort but by courage, especially when speaking up invites criticism.

Tama naman si TitoSen.

The law is not the private property of lawyers, nor is justice the exclusive province of judges. Courts and law books are tools of governance, not objects of worship. In the final analysis, justice does not live only in rulings and footnotes; it lives in a collective commitment to liberty, fairness, and mutual respect among institutions and citizens alike. When ordinary people feel that justice has become inaccessible, overly technical, or detached from common sense, trust erodes—and trust is the lifeblood of any legal system.

The Supreme Court’s role is to interpret the law, not to make it. This distinction is not semantic; it is foundational. Interpretation applies existing rules to concrete disputes. Lawmaking creates new rules that bind future conduct. When the Court effectively crafts new standards governing impeachment—an area the Constitution deliberately assigns to Congress—it crosses a constitutional line. That line matters. Because once interpretation quietly morphs into legislation, the balance collapses. The referee becomes a player, and the game ceases to be fair.

Many citizens sense this unease even if they cannot articulate it in legal jargon. They feel that something fundamental has shifted—that a political accountability mechanism has been judicialized beyond recognition. They see doctrines invoked to stop processes before they can even mature. And they remember—rightly or wrongly—that the Court’s credibility has, in past periods, been bruised by perceptions of partisan alignment. In constitutional governance, perception matters almost as much as doctrine. Legitimacy is not sustained by authority alone, but by public confidence that power is exercised with restraint.

This is not a call to weaken the judiciary. On the contrary, it is a call to protect it—by insisting that it remain within its proper sphere. Courts are strongest when they are restrained, principled, and faithful to their constitutional limits. When they appear to substitute their judgment for that of elected institutions on political questions, they invite backlash and undermine their own moral authority.

A healthy democracy demands friction among co-equal branches. Congress must guard its mandate. The Executive must respect legal boundaries. The Judiciary must exercise humility. This tension is not a flaw; it is a feature. When one branch expands at the expense of the others, governance does not become more efficient—it becomes brittle. And brittle systems break under pressure.

History teaches us that constitutional crises do not begin with dramatic declarations. They begin quietly—with blurred lines, rationalized exceptions, and overreach left unchallenged because questioning authority was deemed impolite or dangerous. Democracies are not preserved by reverence alone, but by vigilance.

That is why questioning the Court, when warranted, is not sedition. It is a civic responsibility.

By speaking out, SP Tito Sotto is not undermining democracy. He is reminding us how it survives: through courage, debate, and an unwavering insistence that no one—no matter how robed or learned—is above the Constitution.

_____

*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: 1.52M