When a Political Party’s Discipline Dies, Corruption Reigns

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

I was only six years old when leadership first touched my life.

In a small Grade 1 classroom—with its wooden chairs, dusty erasers, and a chalkboard that towered like a wall of authority—I heard my name called as the newly elected Class President. I didn’t fully understand the weight of that title then. All I knew was that beside my name on the board were the words President, Secretary, Sergeant-at-Arms, and Treasurer. Together, we were entrusted with the responsibility to keep our class in order whenever our teacher stepped outside.

One afternoon, our teacher left for a meeting. And like many Grade 1 rooms in the Philippines, the moment she closed the door, chaos erupted.

A classmate began running around, shouting, banging chairs, disturbing everyone. As Class President, it was my job to keep the peace. I called him to order. The sergeant-at-arms wrote his name on the board. Still, he ignored us. He believed the absence of the teacher gave him absolute freedom to misbehave.

When our teacher returned and saw the messy board filled with names, she didn’t scold the noisy child first.

She looked at me.

Directly.

Uncomfortably.

“Rodolfo Ortiz Teope! Why did you allow this? You are the President. Where was the discipline? Where was the leadership?”

I was stunned. I was just a child. But now, through the lens of age and experience, I understand why she looked at me that way.

Leadership is not only about what you do.

Leadership is about what you tolerate.

And as I witness the unfolding tragedy of the flood control scandal today—a scandal of staggering magnitude and heartbreaking consequences—I realize that the same childhood lesson echoes in the very foundations of our political system.

Just like that unruly classmate, the corrupt officials who stole billions in flood control funds are guilty. But they are not the only ones at fault.

The deeper betrayal lies with the political parties—the supposed class officers of our democracy—that refused to discipline them.

The Flood Control Scandal: Not Just Corruption, but a National Betrayal

I have spent years studying governance, teaching public safety professionals, advising government leaders, and analyzing political behavior. But the flood control scandal is one of the most painful national wounds I’ve ever seen.

This was not ordinary corruption.

It was engineered plunder, executed with bureaucratic precision and protected by political complicity.

Billions were siphoned through manipulated budget insertions, ghost projects, inflated contracts, and coordinated influence networks. This was not one rogue official. This was a political ecosystem of greed.

And many of its architects?

Senators.

Congressmen.

Influential political actors.

Some already face cases.

Some await indictment.

Some will inevitably be imprisoned.

But the more painful truth is this:

They stole because they were allowed to steal.

Just like the noisy classmate who misbehaved because the “officers” refused to act, these legislators plundered because their political parties chose silence over discipline.

In political science, Sartori (1976) notes that party discipline is the “internal immune system” of a political structure. When it fails, the body becomes defenseless against corruption.

That is precisely what happened. 

Political parties permitted their members to abuse the system without fear of consequences. They valued numbers over integrity, loyalty over morality, and power over patriotism.

Their silence built the runway from which corruption took flight.

 

Corruption as Human Suffering

We often analyze corruption in technical terms—budgets, appropriations, contracts. But corruption in flood control is a tragedy with human faces.

Every diverted peso is a mother standing on her rooftop, praying the waters stop rising.

Every kickback is a child wading through waist-deep water just to reach school.

Every manipulated allocation is a father watching his small business drown in brown floodwater.

Hellman, Jones, and Kaufmann (2000) call this state capture: when public institutions serve private greed instead of public good.

But for the Filipino people, it is simply betrayal.

It is betrayal when a Senator turns flood control into an ATM machine.

It is betrayal when a Congressman inflates budgets while families lose their homes.

It is betrayal when political parties pretend they don’t see.

Corruption is not just the theft of money.

It is the theft of safety, dignity, and hope.

 

NPC’s Expulsion of Alice Guo: A Rare Moment of Courage

This is why the decision of the National People’s Coalition (NPC) to expel Alice Guo struck me deeply.

For the first time in years, a political party acted like my Grade 1 class officers were supposed to act. They looked at a member whose actions endangered credibility, loyalty, and national security—and said:

“Your name goes on the board.

You must go.”

In academic terms, Diamond and Gunther (2001) call this defensive institutionalization—a party choosing to preserve its moral identity by expelling those who compromise it.

Most political parties would have protected her.

NPC did not.

And in doing so, NPC revealed how glaringly cowardly other parties have been. 

Parties that protect Senators and Representatives involved in the flood control racket are not political institutions.

They are shelters for syndicates.

NPC’s decision was a reminder that political parties can act with dignity—if they want to.

The Reckoning Will Not Spare the Parties

The time of reckoning is near.

And it will be swift.

Names will be indicted.

Senators will be arrested.

Congressmen will be jailed.

Contractors will confess.

Networks will collapse.

 

But the reckoning will not end with individuals.

It will fall upon the political parties that enabled them.

As Schedler (1999) notes, democracies do not collapse under the weight of corruption alone—they collapse when institutions refuse to self-correct.

Political parties in the Philippines have refused to self-correct for far too long.

NPC took one brave step.

Others must follow—or be remembered as accomplices.

Purge or Perish: The Hard Truth

Just as my Grade 1 teacher held me accountable for the noise I allowed, the Filipino people will hold political parties accountable for the corruption they tolerated.

A political party that protects a corrupt Senator is not a political institution—it is a cartel.

A party that shelters a corrupt Congressman is not a force for democracy—it is a criminal syndicate with a logo.

When a political party’s discipline dies, corruption does not merely reign.

It becomes culture.

It becomes generational.

It becomes the flood that destroys our future.

And unless political parties choose courage over convenience—

unless they write the names on the board and expel the corrupt—

the next floods that drown us will not be caused by typhoons,

but by our own political cowardice.

 

References

 

• Diamond, L., & Gunther, R. (2001). Political parties and democracy. Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Hellman, J. S., Jones, G., & Kaufmann, D. (2000). Seize the state, seize the day: State capture, corruption, and influence in transition. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2444.
• Johnston, M. (2005). Syndromes of corruption: Wealth, power, and democracy. Cambridge University Press.
• Sartori, G. (1976). Parties and party systems: A framework for analysis. Cambridge University Press.
• Schedler, A. (1999). Conceptualizing accountability. In A. Schedler, L. Diamond, & M. F. Plattner (Eds.), The self-restraining state: Power and accountability in new democracies (pp. 13–28). Lynne Rienner Publishers.

 ____

 *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: 1.11M

Political Self-Protection Through Narrative Inflation: The Case of Zaldy Co

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

The study of political behavior often feels distant until one recalls how its earliest patterns surface long before academic language develops to describe them. I first encountered the anatomy of false accusation, reputational distortion, and guilt displacement not in a university lecture, but as a high school student in an exclusive school for boys pressured into accepting blame for something I hardly touched. A Playboy magazine had circulated among a group of curious lustful creatures, passed eagerly from hand to hand in that reckless curiosity characteristic of teenagers. My involvement amounted to a brief, hesitant glance from a distance. Yet when the risk of punishment emerged, one of the boys—ironically the most engaged participant—rushed to “report” the incident to save himself. He framed himself as morally upright and pointed to me as a primary culprit simply because I was quiet, unassertive, and willing to sacrifice.

What happened that day became a personal primer in the political psychology of preemptive self-exoneration, a behavior in which individuals attempt to absolve themselves by controlling the narrative before facts can emerge. That high school moment, painful as it was, has returned to me with unsettling clarity as I watch the flood control scandal, where Zaldy Co has positioned himself as one of its loudest accusers. What I once witnessed in a school disciplinary case now unfolds on a national stage supported by media, institutions, and shifting political alliances.

Political psychology helps explain why Co has embraced the role of outraged truth-teller despite being closely connected to the systems under scrutiny. Goffman’s (1959) theory of impression management is instructive: when reputational stakes are high, individuals construct strategic public identities to mitigate potential damage. Co’s visible and repeated denunciations of corruption constitute a protective performance, enabling him to frame himself as a reformist figure rather than someone who benefited from the machinery that enabled the alleged anomalies.

This behavior aligns with McGraw’s (1990) findings on blame avoidance, which demonstrate that political actors actively preempt negative outcomes by shifting responsibility before blame is assigned. In high-stakes scandals, the pressure to engage in blame avoidance rises, prompting actors to deflect responsibility toward institutions, processes, or other individuals. Hood (2011) similarly argues that public officials under threat employ strategies of denial and narrative deflection to preserve legitimacy even when facing mounting evidence.

The act of enabling or encouraging the implication of the President reflects a more sophisticated political maneuver documented in crisis governance literature. Boin, ’t Hart, Stern, and Sundelius (2017) explain how actors engage in crisis exploitation, using chaotic events to reshape political power structures and public perception. When a political figure like Co senses institutional vulnerability, widening the crisis becomes a calculated means of self-preservation. By elevating the scandal to the level of the presidency, he dissolves any clear line of culpability and embeds himself within a broader narrative of systemic failure.

This approach resonates with Farazmand’s (2003) argument that manufactured instability allows political entrepreneurs to benefit from institutional confusion. Chaos creates opportunities for actors to rebrand themselves as truth-tellers, reformers, or indispensable voices. By expanding the scandal upward, Co transforms himself from a possible subject of investigation into an essential figure in a national drama.

Political communication theory adds further clarity. McCombs and Shaw’s (1972) agenda-setting research explains that repeated public statements shape which issues the public sees as important, while framing theory shapes how the audience interprets events. Co’s persistent framing of the scandal shifts public focus away from congressional oversight and toward executive responsibility. Once the President becomes symbolically implicated, the scandal is no longer an administrative issue—it becomes a question of national leadership, which conveniently obscures Co’s own proximity to the alleged irregularities.

Girard’s (1986) concept of scapegoat dynamics also helps interpret this behavior. Expanding blame to the highest office symbolically shifts guilt from individuals to institutions. The larger the target, the more diffused the moral contamination becomes, allowing political figures like Co to present themselves as corrective forces rather than contributors to wrongdoing.

Scholars of political transitions note that when actors anticipate potential changes in leadership, they engage in “pre-transition positioning,” crafting narratives to secure their future roles under a new administration (O’Donnell & Schmitter, 1986). In the volatile Philippine political environment, Co’s behavior reflects this anticipation. If public discontent weakens the presidency, he can later claim that he “warned the nation early,” allowing him to recast himself not as a villain but as a patriot. Should leadership change, he could be rewarded for his perceived courage; should the administration survive, he can frame his actions as principled oversight.

This aligns directly with Meier’s (2019) concept of strategic self-exoneration, where actors reveal selective truths or amplify controversies not for moral reasons but to mitigate personal jeopardy and restructure political narratives. By allowing the scandal to engulf even the presidency, Co ensures that any accountability process becomes diffuse, contested, and subject to political theatrics rather than rigorous investigation.

Beyond theory, however, lies the human cost. Many honest public servants—engineers, technical personnel, regional directors—now find themselves caught in a narrative they did not create. Their reputations and families suffer because someone more powerful seeks protection through spectacle. Their silence does not reflect guilt but paralysis, the same paralysis I felt years ago as a high school student being unjustly accused.

The flood control scandal is not only a governance issue—it is a human story about how far individuals will go to rewrite their role from villain to hero, even if it means destabilizing institutions and hurting people who never sought to be part of the spectacle.

And so, I return to that moment in high school—not as nostalgia but as a warning. A louder lie once drowned out my truth, and today, the nation stands on that same fragile edge. In a time when guilt often speaks first and truth is forced to whisper, the real test before us is simple yet profound: will we allow the loudest voices to define our future, or will we finally choose to defend the truth that has waited far too long to be heard?

References

• Boin, A., ’t Hart, P., Stern, E., & Sundelius, B. (2017). The politics of crisis management: Public leadership under pressure. Cambridge University Press.
• Farazmand, A. (2003). Chaos and transformation theories: A theoretical analysis with implications for organization theory and public management. Public Organization Review, 3(4), 339–372.
• Girard, R. (1986). The scapegoat. Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.
• Hood, C. (2011). The blame game: Spin, bureaucracy, and self-preservation in government. Princeton University Press.
• McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187.
• McGraw, K. M. (1990). Avoiding blame: An experimental investigation of political excuses and justifications. American Political Science Review, 84(4), 1133–1157.
• Meier, K. (2019). Strategic disclosure and the politics of self-preservation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(3), 403–417.
• O’Donnell, G., & Schmitter, P. (1986). Transitions from authoritarian rule: Tentative conclusions about uncertain democracies. Johns Hopkins University Press.

____

 *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: 1.25M

Pilipinas na Nasa Gilid ng Bangin ng Pagpanaw ng Demokrasya: Pumipili sa Katotohanan, Konstitusyon, at Kinabukasang Karapat-dapat sa Atin

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

Habang papalapit ang Nobyembre 30, tila may bigat na bumabalot sa hangin—hindi takot, hindi din naman kasiyahan, kundi isang tahimik na paghinto. Parang humihinga nang malalim ang buong bansa, na tila handang humarap hindi lamang sa katiwalian, kundi sa sariling konsensya. Ang Trillion March Against Corruption ay hindi basta pagtitipon; ito ay bunga ng kirot na pinasan nang napakatagal ng mga pamilyang nawalan ng mahal sa buhay dahil sa baha, ng mga komunidad na ninakawan ng kaligtasan, at ng sambayanang sawa na sa tanong kung kailan nga ba muling magigising ang tunay na diwa ng mabuting pamamahala.

Hindi pera lang ang ninakaw sa flood-control scandal. Ang ninakaw ay dangal. Ang ninakaw ay tiwala. Ang ninakaw ay buhay. Bawat sirang tulay, bawat gumuhong dike, bawat pamilyang nagluluksa ay paalala na kapag ang katiwalian ay nagiging bahagi na ng sistema, ang mga trahedya ay hindi na aksidente kundi inaasahang kabayaran. Kaya mabigat ang darating na martsa—hindi lamang dahil sa galit, kundi dahil ito’y paghaharap sa ating kolektibong sugat.

Ngunit sa likod ng taos-pusong damdamin ng taumbayan, may mga aninong gumagalaw. May mga grupong naghihintay ng tamang sandali para baluktutin ang tinig ng bayan. May naghahanda ng manggugulo, may bumubulong ng kaguluhan, may nag-aabang na sumiklab ang alitan upang sabihing hindi na kayang pamunuan ng gobyerno ang bansa. Hindi sila nagmamartsa para sa katotohanan. Nagmamartsa sila para sa sariling interes. Para sa kanila, ang gulo ay hindi panganib—ito ay oportunidad.

Kapag ganitong umiinit ang sitwasyon, lumilitaw ang tukso ng mga “shortcut.” May mga nagsisimulang magsalita tungkol sa caretaker government, transition council, mga teknokratang ipapasok upang “patatagin” ang bansa. Isa sa mga pangalan na paulit-ulit na binabanggit ay si Ramon S. Ang—isang taong kagalang-galang, disiplinado, at mahusay mangasiwa ng malalaking korporasyon. Marami ang naniniwala, kasama na ako, na kaya niyang ihatid ang bansa sa mas matatag na ekonomiya at kaayusan.

At kailangan kong maging malinaw: Wala pong masama kung makita natin si Ramon Ang bilang posibleng lider ng bansa sa hinaharap. Noong 2022, aminado ako—umaasa akong tumakbo siya. Sa kaniyang talino, pananaw, at kakayahang humawak ng malalaking institusyon na may katahimikan at tapang, nakita ko ang potensyal niya para pamunuan ang Pilipinas tungo sa pagiging isang tiger economy. Maraming humahanga sa kanya. Maraming nagtitiwala. At kasama ako roon.

Pero iba ang paghanga sa paglabag sa Konstitusyon.

Ang Pilipinas ay hindi bansa ng shortcut. Bansa tayo ng batas. Kung talagang nais ng sambayanan na pamunuan tayo ni Ramon Ang o sinumang iba pa, ang tamang panahon ay 2028—hindi ngayon, hindi bukas, at hindi sa gitna ng kaguluhan. Sa halalan iyon magpapasya ang lahat ng Pilipino, hindi lamang ang iilang nasa Maynila, hindi lamang ang nasa mga boardroom, hindi ang mga negosyador sa likod ng pinto. Ang liderato ay dapat manggaling sa tao, hindi idinidikta ng iilan.

Kung ipapasok si Ramon Ang sa kapangyarihan sa paraang labag sa Konstitusyon, hindi lamang matatapakan ang ating demokrasya—masisira ang pangalan ng taong matagal niyang pinangalagaan. Sa sandaling siya ay maluklok sa isang posisyong hindi dumaan sa proseso, magkakagulo ang pulitika, mag-uumpukan ang mga kalaban, at dudungisan siya ng mga intrigang hindi niya hiniling. Hindi iyon karapat-dapat sa isang lider na nirerespeto ng marami.

At hindi rin iyon karapat-dapat sa ating bayan.

May malinaw tayong Konstitusyon. Kung mawalan man ng tiwala ang bayan sa Pangulo at Pangalawang Pangulo, malinaw ang susunod na mamumuno. Nasa mga institusyon ang sagot, ang pangulo ng senado, speaker ng kamara at chief justice ng supreme court ang nakalahad sa rule of succession. Doon nagmumula ang katatagan ng Republika. Doon tayo nagkakaisa bilang isang bansa. Dalawang beses nang kinuha ng People Power sa Maynila ang kapangyarihan mula sa Malacañang. Dalawang beses na napalitan ang liderato dahil sa lakas ng iilang nasa EDSA. Oo, makasaysayan ang mga iyon. Pero hindi iyon kabuuan ng tinig ng buong sambayanan. Hindi iyon representasyon ng bawat Pilipino mula Batanes hanggang Tawi-Tawi. Ingay iyon—hindi numero. Pag-aari iyon ng Imperial Manila—hindi ng buong Republika.

At hindi dapat maulit ang pagkakamaling iyon.

Ang Nobyembre 30 ay dapat maging araw hindi ng kaguluhan, kundi ng pagmulat. Dapat maging araw hindi ng paninira ng sistema, kundi ng pag-angkin muli sa dangal ng ating demokrasya. Dapat maging araw ng katapangan—hindi ng pagiging padalos-dalos. Dapat maging araw ng pagkakaisa—hindi ng pag-agaw ng kapangyarihan.

Bilang ama, guro, at lingkod-bayan, ang hangad ko ay isang Pilipinas kung saan ang aking anak ay mamumuhay sa ilalim ng pamahalaang may dangal at prosesong iginagalang. Isang Pilipinas kung saan ang liderato ay pinipili dahil sa tiwala, hindi dahil sa gulo. Isang Pilipinas kung saan hindi kailangang guluhin ang bayan para lamang magpalit ng kapangyarihan.

Kaya ngayong papalapit ang Nobyembre 30, may tanong akong iniiwan sa bawat Pilipino:

Hahayaan ba nating ang galit ang magpabukas ng pintuan sa mga paraang labag sa batas—o ipagtatanggol natin ang prinsipyo na bumubuo sa ating Republika?

Papayag ba tayong ang pinakamalakas na boses sa Maynila ang laging nagtatakda ng kapalaran ng buong bansa—o kikilos tayo para sa tahimik ngunit malawak na tinig ng sambayanang naniniwala sa proseso?

Ipagkakatiwala ba natin ang kinabukasan sa ingay—o itataya natin ang sarili sa Konstitusyong nagpoprotekta sa ating lahat?

Tinatawag tayo muli ng kasaysayan.

At sa pagkakataong ito, piliin sana natin ang landasing hindi dinidikta ng takot at kaguluhan, kundi ng tapang, talino, at pagrespeto sa batas.

_____

 *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: 624K