Ang Panunungkulan sa Barangay ay Hindi Lisensya sa Pananakot

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

Sa antas ng barangay, ang kapangyarihan ng gobyerno ay pinakamalapit at pinakaramdam ng mamamayan. Dito direktang nararanasan ng tao ang epekto ng pamumuno—sa pananalita, sa kilos, at sa asal ng mga opisyal. Dahil dito, malinaw na itinatakda ng batas na ang parehong pamantayan ng etika ay ipinapataw sa mga opisyal ng barangay gaya ng sa mga opisyal ng pambansang pamahalaan. Ang Republic Act No. 6713 ay hindi kumikilala sa “maliit” o “mababang” posisyon. Ang kinikilala nito ay public trust.

Gayunman, lumilitaw ang isang paulit-ulit na problema sa maraming barangay: ang asal-siga at asal-bully ng ilang Kagawad at Kapitan. Kung makasita ay parang laging may kasamang pananakot. Pinapatawag ang mga residente sa barangay hall upang “magpaliwanag” kahit walang nilalabag na ordinansa, resolusyon, o batas. Ang ganitong gawain ay hindi lamang bastos o hindi kanais-nais—ito ay may seryosong implikasyong konstitusyonal at legal.

Abuse of Authority at Paglabag sa Ethical Standards

Sa ilalim ng RA 6713, ang mga public officials ay inaatasang kumilos nang may professionalism, integrity, political neutrality, at justness and sincerity. Ang pananakot sa mga residente, ang sapilitang pagpapapunta sa barangay hall nang walang legal na batayan, at ang paggamit ng pananalita o kilos na naglalayong manindak ay tahasang paglabag sa mga pamantayang ito. Hindi kasama sa mandato ng Kagawad o Kapitan ang mang-harass o manakot ng kapwa barangay.

Ang kapangyarihan ng barangay ay administrative at facilitative, hindi coercive. Ang mga Kagawad at Kapitan ay hindi law-enforcement officers. Wala silang likas na kapangyarihan upang pilitin ang sinuman na magpaliwanag, magsagawa ng imbestigasyon, o manghimasok sa pribadong buhay ng mga residente kung walang pahintulot o legal na awtoridad. Kapag lumampas ang mga opisyal sa hangganang ito, sila ay gumagawa ng abuse of authority, isang malinaw na batayan ng administrative liability.

Selective Enforcement at Political Discrimination

Mas lalong lumalala ang paglabag kapag may selective enforcement. Ang madalas pinupuntirya ay ang mga residenteng hindi supporter, hindi botante, o hayagang kritiko ng mga opisyal. Samantala, ang mga kaalyado sa politika, kamag-anak, o dating kasama sa kampanya ay pinapalampas kahit may malinaw na paglabag. Ito ay tuwirang paglabag sa political neutrality na malinaw na itinatadhana ng RA 6713.

Ang barangay ay hindi extension ng political campaign. Kapag tapos na ang halalan, ang obligasyon ng Kagawad at Kapitan ay magsilbi sa lahat ng residente, hindi lamang sa mga bumoto sa kanila. Ang paggamit ng kapangyarihan upang gipitin ang mga hindi kapanalig ay isang anyo ng discrimination, misconduct, at ethical violation.

Coercion na Itinatago sa Likod ng Pamamahala

Ang sapilitang pagpapatawag sa barangay hall nang walang legal na batayan, lalo na kung may kasamang pananakot, ay hindi pamamahala—ito ay coercion. Ang ganitong gawain ay sumisira sa due process at nagpapahina sa tiwala ng mamamayan sa pamahalaan. Hindi “disiplina” ang pananakot; ito ay administrative overreach.

Ang mga ganitong kilos ay maaaring pumasok sa grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, at paglabag sa RA 6713. Ang mga ito ay malinaw na sakop ng hurisdiksyon ng Office of the Ombudsman at ng Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG).

Ang Pananagutan ay Hindi Opsyonal

May isang mapanganib na paniniwala na ang mga opisyal ng barangay ay “maliit lang” upang managot sa batas. Ito ay maling-mali. Ang hurisdiksyon ng Ombudsman ay sumasaklaw sa lahat ng public officials, halal man o itinalaga, anuman ang ranggo. Hindi sinusukat ng batas ang pananagutan sa taas ng posisyon, kundi sa bigat ng paglabag.

Ang public office ay hindi lisensya sa pananakot.

Ang pamumuno ay hindi nasusukat sa takot na naibibigay, kundi sa tiwalang naitatag. Ang opisyal na umaasa sa pananakot ay bigo na sa pagsubok ng etika at batas.

Sa huli, dapat tandaan ng bawat Kagawad at Kapitan: ang posisyon ay pansamantala, ngunit ang legal at ethical record ay permanente. Ang RA 6713 ay malinaw sa hangganan ng kapangyarihan. Kapag ito ay nilabag, ang pananagutan ay hindi usaping pulitikal—ito ay legal consequence.

_____

*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

Raymond Aguilar vs. Rookie Arrogance: Why Humility Is the First Defense Against Corruption in the Philippine Government

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

I watch basketball the way I study governance—slowly, quietly, and always suspicious of noise. Years of observing power, whether in government corridors, law-enforcement classrooms, or inside basketball arenas, have taught me one hard truth: arrogance always shows itself early. It hides behind confidence, applause, and the illusion of instant importance.

That is why the statement “Hindi ko kilala si Raymond Aguilar—ano ba average niya sa PBA? ” hit me deeply.

When Juan Gomez de Liaño publicly said he had “never heard of” Raymond Aguilar and even questioned his averages, it was more than trash talk. It was a worldview exposed. As a basketball fan, I shook my head. As a political analyst, I felt uneasy. As a public safety and law enforcement educator, I recognized the pattern immediately. I have heard the same tone from young officials who believe popularity replaces accountability and early success excuses disrespect.

Raymond Aguilar is not just another player. He is a long-time substitute center of Barangay Ginebra San Miguel, one of the most storied franchises in Philippine basketball. You do not last that long in a team like Ginebra by accident.

The issue began during the PBA Season 50 Philippine Cup quarterfinals when Aguilar parodied Gomez de Liaño’s premature in-game celebration—a moment that quickly went viral. Instead of letting the moment pass, the response escalated online. The question that followed—“What does he average tho? (PBA)”—reduced value to numbers alone.

That question misses the point.

Raymond Aguilar responded not with insults, not with a press conference, but with quiet symbolism. He wore a shirt that read “Mr. Never Heard.” No shouting. No online war. Just a silent reminder that some of the most important people in any institution are never the most visible.

Raymond Aguilar has spent years doing the uncelebrated work—providing frontcourt depth, absorbing contact, mentoring quietly, and being present when stars rest or falter. He has been part of seven championship teams, not because he demanded attention, but because he accepted responsibility. In governance terms, he is the career civil servant who never trends but keeps the agency running. In law enforcement, he is the senior officer who corrects behavior before misconduct becomes scandal.

Even Tim Cone, a coach known for discipline and zero tolerance for entitlement, has consistently valued Aguilar’s presence. Keeping a player for so many years in a championship-driven system is not charity—it is trust. It means that beyond minutes and numbers, this player understands the system, protects the culture, and preserves institutional memory. In government, these are the people who keep agencies standing when politics shakes them.

What unsettled me most about JGDL’s remarks was not just the disrespect, but the logic behind it. Hindi ko kilala. Ano ba average niya? This is exactly how corruption begins.

In public service, corruption rarely starts with stealing money. It starts with arrogance. It starts when young officials dismiss senior staff because they are “unknown,” ignore auditors because they are “not popular,” and treat institutions as obstacles instead of safeguards. It begins when worth is measured only by visibility and numbers.

JGDL’s arrogance mirrors this danger perfectly.

As a rookie enjoying early success, he is still in the phase where the system has not fully adjusted. Defenses have not yet closed in. Scouting reports are incomplete. In governance terms, this is the period before a full audit, before the Commission on Audit steps in, before compliance checks, before command responsibility is enforced. Early success creates the illusion of invincibility. And illusion, when left unchecked, becomes entitlement.

That entitlement is the seed of corruption.

I have taught law-enforcement officers who started strong—brilliant even—but collapsed later because they believed early praise exempted them from rules. They questioned elders. They mocked procedure. They treated discipline as insecurity. When accountability finally came, they were unprepared—because arrogance had already replaced humility.

That is why veteran correction matters.

Raymond Aguilar’s response was not personal—it was institutional. In governance, we call this early intervention. In law enforcement, corrective discipline. It is leadership saying: we correct this now, or we pay for it later. Silence would have been more dangerous. Silence is how arrogance becomes culture, and culture—once corrupted—destroys teams and governments alike.

Barangay Ginebra did not win championships on stars alone. They won because men like Raymond Aguilar accepted roles that never make highlight reels but save seasons. Backup center. Insurance. Stability. In government, these are the people who keep records clean, processes followed, and institutions standing long after administrations change.

Raymond Aguilar did not start this issue.

He simply refused to let disrespect pass unchecked.

As a basketball fan, I admire talent.

As a political analyst, I fear unchecked power.

As a public safety and law enforcement educator, I know where arrogance leads.

The moment a person measures worth only by visibility and numbers, corruption has already begun.

And so, to the young athletes chasing applause and the young public officials chasing influence, hear this from someone who has seen both triumph and collapse up close: talent will open doors, but only humility will keep them open. Do not fear audits—they protect you. Do not resent oversight—it saves you. Learn to listen before you speak, to serve before you demand, to respect before you rise. Because the game—like governance—will eventually audit you.

In the end, I return to what Barangay Ginebra has always stood for—Never Say Die. It is more than a chant shouted by fans in red. It is a declaration of values. It is the refusal to surrender to arrogance. It is the belief that discipline outlasts noise, and humility outlives entitlement.

Corruption, like premature celebration, always thinks it has already won. It mocks the quiet workers. It underestimates the veterans. It believes power, numbers, and visibility make it untouchable. But the game is never over. Audits come. Accountability tightens. Command responsibility is enforced. And those who endured—those who served quietly, corrected early, and refused to quit—are the ones still standing.

Raymond Aguilar’s journey reminds us that corruption is not beaten by arrogance, but by patience; not by noise, but by consistency; not by shortcuts, but by character. Never Say Die is the belief that even when institutions are shaken, they can still rise—because integrity has endurance.

And as long as there are athletes who respect the game, public servants who honor their oath, and citizens who refuse to surrender to cynicism, corruption will never have the final word.

Because in this country—like in Barangay Ginebra—we do not give up, we do not bow to arrogance, and we do not stop fighting until the right side wins. Never. Say. Die.

_____

*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: 1.43M

Every Day Now Is Destabilization Day—The Question No One Wants to Ask

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

I remember reading about a country that woke up one morning believing history had already turned its page. The flags were changed, the palace was occupied, and a new leadership announced itself to the world with certainty. Yet outside its borders, there was only silence. No recognition. No congratulations. Only cautious statements and frozen decisions. It was Afghanistan in 2021, when the Taliban regained control. They held the streets and the ministries, but not the confidence of the international community. That pause—quiet, diplomatic, and devastating—hurt the nation more deeply than the gunfire that preceded it. Control was achieved overnight. Legitimacy was not.

That memory refuses to leave me today.

When I hear public calls for a “one-time, big-time” rally to remove President Bongbong Marcos, I do not hear courage or reform. I hear a dangerous assumption echoing through our political discourse: that a government can fall on any given day, and that whatever follows will naturally be accepted—by the people, by institutions, and by the world. This assumption is reckless. And what makes it more alarming is how casually it is spoken.

When figures like Chavit Singson talk about sudden mobilization, many dismiss it as political theater. But history teaches us that destabilization does not begin with tanks rolling down avenues. It begins with language that normalizes rupture. It begins when the idea that any day can be the day becomes socially acceptable. From that moment on, every day becomes destabilization day.

The most uncomfortable question—the one few are willing to ask aloud—is not whether a sitting president can be ousted. History has proven, time and again, that it can happen. The real question is this: What happens the day after? Who governs not just in name, but in legitimacy? Who speaks for the country when foreign governments quietly ask, “Is this constitutional? Is this stable? Is this permanent?”

This question becomes heavier when we consider the Philippines’ current geopolitical posture. The country today maintains a strong and explicit strategic relationship with the United States. This relationship is not abstract or sentimental; it is operational. It is anchored in active defense arrangements such as the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement and reinforced daily by shared security concerns—most critically, the ongoing tensions in the West Philippine Sea. These are not optional commitments. They are visible signals of alliance, deterrence, and continuity.

Any abrupt or extra-constitutional change in leadership would inevitably force Washington and its allies to pause, reassess, and review the legitimacy of the new government. Recognition, in such moments, does not arrive automatically. It is withheld until clarity emerges. And in geopolitics, that pause alone can be destabilizing.

Some assume that if President Marcos Jr. were suddenly removed, Vice President Sara Duterte would seamlessly assume power and inherit full international recognition. That assumption ignores how foreign policy perceptions shape legitimacy. Fairly or unfairly, she is widely viewed as inheriting her father’s foreign policy posture—one seen as more accommodating toward China. In a time when maritime disputes are intensifying and alliances are being stress-tested, such perceptions matter. They influence trust, security, cooperation, and diplomatic confidence.

The effects of non-recognition by the United States and its allies would not be symbolic. They would be immediate and deeply damaging. Economically, uncertainty would ripple through markets. Foreign investors would hesitate. Credit risk would be reassessed. Development financing would slow or become conditional. The peso would feel pressure driven not only by fundamentals, but by fear. And fear, once embedded in markets, is notoriously hard to reverse.

Politically, non-recognition fractures authority. A government questioned abroad becomes vulnerable at home. Bureaucracies slow down, unsure whose signature will still matter weeks from now. Institutions become cautious rather than decisive. Opposition forces grow bolder. Loyalists grow anxious. Governance shifts from leadership to survival.

The security implications are even more severe. Agreements like EDCA are built on trust, constitutional continuity, and recognized authority. In a scenario where recognition is withheld, EDCA would not necessarily be terminated—but it would enter a dangerous gray zone. Joint exercises could be paused. Intelligence sharing could be downgraded. Forward planning could be frozen under “policy review.” In geopolitics, a pause is often more damaging than a withdrawal because it signals uncertainty to both allies and adversaries.

This uncertainty would directly weaken the Philippines’ position in the West Philippine Sea. Maritime disputes are not sustained by declarations alone. They rely on alliance credibility, consistent presence, and the belief—by both friends and rivals—that commitments will hold under pressure. Political instability and diplomatic hesitation erode deterrence without a single shot being fired. Patrols become cautious. Protests lose weight. Adversaries calculate not just capability, but resolve.

We have seen this story before. Venezuela’s long crisis was not merely about ideology or sanctions. It was about fractured recognition, frozen assets, paralyzed institutions, and a nation caught between competing claims of legitimacy. When the world cannot agree on who truly represents a country, that country begins to unravel from within.

The Philippines is not immune to such a fate. Our strategic value—our geography, our alliances, our role in regional balance—means that any sudden political rupture will never be treated as a purely domestic matter. It will be weighed, judged, and acted upon by others. Aid pauses. Investments freeze. Security cooperation enters review. Silence becomes policy.

I write this not to defend personalities or political dynasties. I write this out of concern for the state. Political ambition is temporary. National credibility is not. Once a country earns the reputation of being perpetually unstable, recognition becomes conditional, alliances become transactional, and sovereignty quietly erodes.

Every day now is destabilization day, not because the government is about to fall, but because we have allowed the idea of collapse to become casual conversation. And when collapse becomes casual, preparation replaces trust—both at home and abroad.

The hardest truth history teaches us is this: overthrowing a government is far easier than convincing the world that what replaced it deserves recognition. Power can be seized in a day. Legitimacy takes years to build—and seconds to lose.

The question no one wants to ask is not whether change is possible. It is whether, after the noise fades and the crowds go home, the world will still recognize the Philippines as a stable, legitimate, and reliable state. Because if that recognition is withheld, it will not be politicians who suffer first.

It will be the nation itself—quietly, painfully, and for a very long time.

_____

 *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: 998K