When Kaufman Defended Tatay Digong Before the World: Law, Love, and the Fractured Filipino Heart

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

On February 23, 2026, inside the solemn halls of the International Criminal Court, Nicholas Kaufman rose to defend former President Rodrigo Duterte. It was a legal proceeding, structured and procedural. Yet for us Filipinos, it felt heavier than law. It felt personal.

Kaufman spoke of political motivation. He questioned jurisdiction. He defended the anti-drug campaign as the product of a democratic mandate. He appealed to the image of Tatay Digong, not merely as an accused individual, but as a father figure to millions. His words were measured, yet they carried the weight of a nation divided between loyalty and loss.

To analyze this moment fairly, we must hold steady hearts.

It is true that Duterte was elected with overwhelming support. Many Filipinos believed that strong leadership was necessary to confront criminality. Communities plagued by drugs and violence felt heard for the first time. For them, his presidency symbolized order restored and authority reclaimed. This sentiment cannot be dismissed lightly. It represents lived experience and genuine gratitude.

Yet it is also true that serious allegations emerged during the campaign against illegal drugs. Families mourned. Questions were raised. Human rights concerns became part of national and international discourse. These voices cannot be dismissed either. They represent grief and unresolved pain.

Between these realities stands the law.

Kaufman argues that the ICC lacks jurisdiction because the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute. This is a legitimate legal argument that the judges must examine carefully. At the same time, established treaty principles suggest that jurisdiction may remain for acts committed while membership was active. The Court will interpret the law. It must do so independently of political pressure and emotional tides.

He also described the charges as politically motivated and linked them to shifting alliances under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.. Political context undeniably shapes public perception. In the Philippines, history and power are intertwined. But perception alone does not determine guilt or innocence. Evidence does. Procedure does. Judicial reasoning does.

As I reflect on this unfolding chapter, I cannot ignore another dimension. I see a narrative that may now be utilized in the 2028 Presidential Election. The image of a father standing before an international court, the suggestion of persecution, and the appeal to loyalty and sovereignty, these are powerful currents. For supporters of Vice President Sara Duterte, this moment may strengthen a sense of solidarity and continuity. For her political opponents, it may feel like a sudden explosion in the electoral landscape. A narrative, once formed, can travel faster than facts and linger longer than verdicts.

But here lies our greatest responsibility as citizens.

If we allow ourselves to consume this ICC case purely through emotion, we risk altering not just an election but our civic character. If we romanticize without reflection, we may surrender critical thinking to personality. If we condemn without patience, we may surrender justice to anger. When emotion replaces discernment, our national behavior changes. We argue more fiercely, we listen less carefully, and we vote more impulsively.

We must be vigilant.

Let us not be carried away by narratives designed to benefit political families who dominate the national stage. Courtrooms should not become campaign stages. Legal proceedings should not be reduced to dynastic ammunition. The Philippines is not about the Marcoses. The Philippines is not about the Dutertes.

The Philippines is about us Filipinos.

It is about the fisherman who wakes before dawn. It is about the mother who prays for her child’s safety. It is about the student who dreams of a country stronger than its past. It is about whether we choose institutions over personalities, evidence over rumor, and maturity over fanaticism.

When Kaufman defended Tatay Digong before the world, he performed his duty as counsel. The prosecution will perform theirs. The judges will decide based on law. But the deeper verdict will be written in our hearts. Will we allow this moment to divide us further, or will we rise above personality politics and demand both strength and accountability within the rule of law?

If we choose wisdom, then regardless of the outcome, the republic will stand taller. If we choose blind loyalty or blind hatred, the fracture within us will deepen.

In the end, this is not only the trial of a former president. It is the quiet trial of our national conscience. And I pray that when history looks back at this moment, it will say that the Filipino people chose clarity over chaos, unity over dynasty, and country over clan.

__

 *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: 1.23M

Jonvic Remulla and the Rise of Integritocracy: Cleansing the System Without Fear

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

As I watch the investigations into the flood control scandal unfold, as I listen to reports about corruption inside the Bureau of Fire Protection, and as I observe the intensified monitoring and auditing of local government transactions, I cannot dismiss these as routine administrative exercises in a complicated constitutional environment and a complex arena of public administration. Something deeper is taking shape. Beneath the headlines and political noise, I see the emergence of a governing conviction, a discipline that I myself have coined and now call "Integritocracy," grounded in what I likewise term "Integritism."

These are not casual inventions of language. They are concepts born from decades of observation, scholarship, and engagement in governance. Integritocracy, as I define it, is a system where integrity is institutionalized, not merely encouraged. Integritism is its philosophical core, the conviction that public office is stewardship, not entitlement. I arrived at these terms through lived experience as a former local official, as an educator in public safety and governance, and as a consultant to numerous government agencies, national leaders, local chief executives, and even private sector institutions. I have seen systems from the inside. I have witnessed how policies are crafted, how budgets are negotiated, how influence operates, and how small compromises gradually evolve into structural corruption. These terms were born from the conviction that without systemic integrity, no political structure, no matter how elegant, can endure.

Flood control funds are not abstract figures in a ledger. They are lifelines. When corruption infiltrates such projects, it is not simply administrative misconduct. It is a moral rupture. It is the anguish of communities whose homes are submerged when prevention was possible. It is preventable suffering disguised as bureaucratic inefficiency. The same moral weight applies to corruption within the Bureau of Fire Protection. When procurement is manipulated or systems are compromised, it is not paperwork that burns. It is homes, businesses, and lives. Accountability in these sectors is not a partisan position. It is a matter of national conscience.

In the actions of Jonvic Remulla as Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government, I see a deliberate shift from accommodation to enforcement. The massive monitoring of local government units and the auditing of transactions signal that impunity is no longer assumed. For too long, corruption survived because it was negotiable. Influence softened investigations. Alliances diluted consequences. Silence became protection. What appears now is less negotiable and more structural. It suggests that enforcement is not situational. It is institutional.

Of course, skepticism will surface. Some will question whether someone associated with a political dynasty can genuinely advance a doctrine centered on integrity. In our political culture, dynastic affiliation often invites suspicion of entrenchment. But experience in governance can be a crucible. Years of managing provinces, confronting internal integrity challenges, and navigating bureaucratic weaknesses expose a leader to the anatomy of corruption. That familiarity can either protect dysfunction or dismantle it. When used for reform, experience becomes strategic clarity.

From my own years advising agencies and local governments, I have learned that corruption rarely begins with grand conspiracies. It begins with tolerated shortcuts, rationalized exceptions, and minor deviations left uncorrected. Systems do not collapse overnight. They erode quietly. To reverse that erosion requires structural discipline. Integritocracy, as I have conceptualized it, demands transparency that exposes wrongdoing, audits that verify compliance, enforcement that acts without hesitation, and deterrence that reshapes behavior. When corruption becomes high risk and oversight becomes consistent, integrity ceases to be optional. It becomes operational culture.

What makes this development even more compelling is that Jonvic Remulla himself may not even be consciously aware that what he is operationalizing resembles what I have termed Integritocracy and Integritism. He may simply see it as a duty: cleaning the system, enforcing accountability, tightening monitoring mechanisms, and refusing to tolerate corruption. Yet doctrines are not always born from formal declarations. They are born from consistent action. Leaders do not necessarily intend to create ideologies. They respond to realities, confront dysfunction, and make decisions that gradually form a pattern. When those decisions consistently favor accountability over accommodation, structure over convenience, and enforcement over negotiation, they begin to embody a philosophy, even if unnamed. The terminology may be mine, but the observable pattern of action gives it life.

The ultimate test of Integritocracy, however, lies beyond lower-level enforcement. It must transcend hierarchy. If credible evidence exists, no title, no surname, and no office, whether local executive, legislator, or national official, be it a Congressman, Senator, Speaker, Senate President, Executive Secretary, Vice President, or President, should be beyond investigation. The rule of law must not circumvent power. Investigate where evidence warrants. Prosecute where a basis exists. Allow judicial processes to operate without fear or favor. Only when accountability is blind to hierarchy can the public trust that no one is untouchable.

For generations, societies have debated democracy, socialism, and capitalism, each proclaimed as the definitive answer to governance. Yet history teaches us a sobering truth. No system collapses solely because of its theoretical design. It collapses because corruption is allowed to live within it. Democracy, noble in promise, can be captured by financial interests and manipulated by influence. Socialism, visionary in aspiration, can be distorted when centralized authority escapes accountability. Any ideology devoid of integrity becomes fragile. Corruption is the silent assassin of governance. It does not overthrow institutions with spectacle. It corrodes them slowly until decay becomes collapse.

Integritocracy does not seek to replace democracy or oppose socialism. It seeks to fortify whatever system exists by embedding integrity as its foundation. Without integrity, democracy becomes transactional. Without integrity, socialism becomes oppressive. Without integrity, any structure, no matter how visionary, decays. Corruption will always kill the system if the system refuses to confront it.

This path will not be universally comfortable. It may unsettle entrenched interests. It may provoke resistance from those accustomed to negotiated outcomes. But cleansing has never aligned with convenience. It requires courage and persistence. If investigations into the flood control scandal continue without compromise, if corruption within the Bureau of Fire Protection is addressed thoroughly, and if local government transactions remain under rigorous scrutiny, then what is unfolding is more than enforcement. It is structural recalibration.

If this discipline endures, if integrity remains institutional rather than rhetorical, then history may one day recognize that what I have termed Integritocracy and Integritism began to take practical form during this period. Under the stewardship of Jonvic Remulla at the Department of the Interior and Local Government, these ideas may move from conceptual articulation to operational standard, not as a TAG, but as systems.

__

*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

 

Dr. Bong Acop: Defending the Mandate of the People of the City of Antipolo’s 2nd District: A Candidacy Anchored on Continuity, Not Entitlement

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

The other afternoon, while passing through Antipolo City on my way to Teresa, Rizal, to fetch my usual siopao and pancit, I noticed something that made me slow down—not my vehicle, but my thoughts. Along the roadside were campaign posters. Familiar faces. New faces. And among them was Dr. Philip Bong Acop, alongside other candidates running for the vacant congressional seat left by the passing of Romeo Acop.

For a moment, politics felt very personal.

Only months ago, the people of Antipolo’s 2nd District had spoken clearly in May 2025. They chose Congressman Romeo Acop. The mandate was fresh. The trust was renewed. And yet, fate intervened. His passing did not revoke the will of the electorate—it merely interrupted it.

As I continued driving toward Teresa, I could not help but reflect. This is not about dynastic politics. It is not about preserving a surname. It is about continuing an interrupted mandate. The people were not dissatisfied. They were not looking for change. They were denied time—denied the opportunity to see the full term of the man they had just elected.

Dr. Philip Bong Acop’s candidacy, as I see it, is anchored on continuity, not entitlement. He is not stepping forward simply because he is the son. He is stepping forward because the mandate given to his father was cut short. The district’s direction was interrupted mid-course.

And what strengthens this position is that Dr. Bong Acop is not an untested figure. He is a three-term City Councilor who understands local governance, legislation, and public budgeting. He is a dedicated Medical Doctor whose profession itself is rooted in service, compassion, and discipline. His track record does not speak of inherited privilege—it speaks of preparation. In many respects, he is not only capable of continuing his father’s work; he is positioned to deliver services and satisfaction to the people at an even higher level. His qualifications make him, in my view, the most prepared to defend and carry forward that interrupted mandate.

Democracy, after all, has its built-in correction.

If he fails to perform, if he cannot meet the expectations of the people, there is 2028. The voters hold the ultimate authority to remove him and install someone they believe can do better. No office is permanent. No mandate is immune from public judgment. That is the beauty—and the discipline—of representative government.

But as I stared at those posters lining the road, I could not ignore another thought. Why the rush? Why the eagerness of others to immediately file candidacy for a position that the people had so recently filled? When a vacancy arises because of death, the first response should be solemn respect for the mandate that was just given. Instead, what sometimes appears is political hunger—the swift calculation that tragedy creates opportunity. To aggressively pursue the seat of a newly elected but deceased representative risks projecting bad faith. Democracy allows contest, yes. But morality demands restraint.

That is why when I later heard the news about Councilor LJ Sumulong, I saw something different. I saw a nationalist from Antipolo City who genuinely loves the city and understands the meaning of respecting an interrupted mandate. In moments like these, leadership is not only measured by ambition but by restraint. To recognize that the people have already spoken and to honor that decision even when opportunity presents itself reflects political maturity. It shows that public service is not always about stepping forward—sometimes it is about knowing when to step back out of respect for the electorate’s recent voice.

As I finally reached Teresa and picked up my siopao and pancit, I found myself reflecting on how politics, like everyday life, is about trust. The people of Antipolo’s 2nd District already expressed that trust months ago. What is being defended now is not a family’s claim to power—but the people’s original decision.

In the end, the posters will fade. Elections will come and go. But the principle remains: a mandate interrupted deserves the chance to be completed—subject always to the judgment of the people.

And that judgment, as always, will have the final word.

__

*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: 1.47M