Protection Without Power: Defects of the Law Creating the Department of Migrant Workers

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

 

I have heard and read too many stories that begin with hope and end in silence. As a researcher, an educator, and a friend of many Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs), I have learned that these stories are not isolated incidents—they are patterns. One story that continues to haunt me is that of a woman sitting in a narrow government hallway, clutching a brown envelope that contained everything she had left: receipts, affidavits, and promises written on cheap paper. She trusted a recruiter who told her that a better life awaited her abroad in Italy. The job never existed. The recruiter disappeared. What remained were debt, shame, and a question she never asked aloud: Where was the government when I needed it most? When Republic Act No. 11641 created the Department of Migrant Workers (DMW), I wanted to believe that stories like hers would finally come to an end.

The creation of the Department of Migrant Workers was born out of decades of frustration. For years, migrant worker protection in the Philippines was fragmented across multiple agencies—POEA, OWWA, DOLE, DFA—each holding a portion of responsibility but none exercising full accountability. In my research and in my classrooms, the same concern repeatedly surfaced: when something goes wrong, no single institution truly owns the problem. RA 11641 promised to correct this by establishing one department that would serve as the clear institutional home for migrant worker protection.

However, as I examined the law more closely and listened to the lived experiences of OFWs and their families, I learned that reorganizing offices is not the same as fixing a broken system. Agencies were merged, but processes were largely left intact. The same forms, the same approvals, the same waiting—only now under a larger department. For an OFW who must take unpaid leave simply to follow up a complaint, or for a family that borrows money just to travel repeatedly to government offices, very little has changed. Red tape was centralized, not eliminated.

The law also struggles with authority. Although the DMW was created to lead migrant worker protection, the Department of Foreign Affairs retains control over embassies and diplomatic decisions, while the Department of Labor and Employment continues to govern domestic labor policy. During overseas crises—detentions, abuse cases, mass layoffs, or emergency repatriations—the same painful question emerges: Who is really in charge? In emergency situations, confusion in command results in delayed responses, and delay often translates into prolonged suffering.

Trust is further weakened by unresolved issues surrounding the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA). OWWA funds are not government donations; they are mandatory contributions taken directly from OFWs themselves. Yet even after OWWA was placed under the DMW, RA 11641 failed to meaningfully reform its governance. Transparency remains limited, OFW participation in decision-making is weak, and accountability is largely internal. Many OFWs continue to ask a simple but deeply personal question: Where does our money really go?

The most serious defect of RA 11641, however, lies in what the law did not give the Department of Migrant Workers—law-enforcement power. Despite being the primary agency mandated to protect migrant workers, the DMW has no authority to arrest illegal recruiters, investigate trafficking syndicates, conduct surveillance, or lead criminal operations. Its powers are confined to administrative actions such as license suspension, blacklisting, and referral of cases to other agencies.

This creates a disturbing contradiction: the agency closest to migrant suffering is legally the weakest in stopping the crimes that cause that suffering. In my research on illegal recruitment and human trafficking, it is evident that these crimes are organized, transnational, and increasingly digital. Syndicates recruit through social media, operate across borders, and disappear quickly. Administrative penalties do not deter organized criminals. One cannot dismantle a criminal network with paperwork alone.

Instead, criminal enforcement is left to the Philippine National Police, the National Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Justice, and the Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking. While these agencies play crucial roles, RA 11641 does not clearly position the DMW as a lead or command agency in anti-trafficking operations. As a result, cases are delayed, passed from office to office, and weakened by jurisdictional confusion. Criminals exploit these gaps. Victims wait—often too long.

This weakness is rooted in how the law frames trafficking and illegal recruitment. Rather than treating them as organized crimes and national security threats, they are often approached as labor or welfare concerns. When crimes are framed softly, responses also become soft. Intelligence-driven operations are limited, surveillance is weak, and action tends to be reactive rather than preventive.

Operationally, the law also falls short abroad. Based on reports, data, and sustained conversations with OFWs, labor attachés, and welfare officers, they remain overstretched and under-resourced. Institutional reorganization did not automatically translate into more personnel, better logistics, or faster assistance. Delays in helping distressed workers are often not due to lack of compassion but to a system burdened beyond its capacity.

When OFWs return home, another gap becomes evident: reintegration. While RA 11641 speaks of reintegration, it does not establish a strong, enforceable system to guarantee employment, recognize skills gained abroad, or ensure sustainable livelihoods. Many OFWs return only to prepare for another departure. Migration becomes a cycle rather than a choice.

Equally troubling is the limited voice of OFWs in shaping the policies that govern their lives. RA 11641 does not mandate meaningful OFW representation in decision-making bodies. Policies are crafted for migrant workers, but rarely with them. As an educator and researcher, I have learned that policies designed without stakeholder participation often fail at the point of implementation.

Even accountability remains unclear. The law provides no clear performance metrics, no public scorecards, and no concrete benchmarks to determine whether the Department of Migrant Workers is truly more effective than the system it replaced. Without measurement, accountability weakens. Without accountability, reform becomes symbolic.

Beyond these institutional and enforcement defects lies a deeper and more uncomfortable implication. By creating a Cabinet-level department whose sole purpose is to manage and protect overseas employment, the state effectively gives legal and policy endorsement to the exportation of Filipino labor. In doing so, RA 11641 implicitly admits a painful economic reality: that the Philippine economy, as currently structured, cannot consistently provide enough high-paying, dignified jobs for its people at home.

Laws do not merely regulate; they communicate priorities. The creation of the Department of Migrant Workers does not challenge the labor-export model—it professionalizes it, stabilizes it, and normalizes it. While the law speaks the language of protection, it quietly concedes that overseas employment is no longer a temporary necessity but a long-term economic pillar. In effect, the State tells its workers, "We will protect you abroad, because we cannot yet guarantee that you can thrive here."

By institutionalizing labor migration through a permanent department, RA 11641 transforms labor export from an emergency response into a normalized state function. This is perhaps the most sobering defect of the law, because it reflects not only governance failure but also an unresolved national development crisis. Protection becomes a substitute for transformation. Management replaces reform.

I do not argue that RA 11641 is a bad law. I argue that it is an unfinished one. A department created to protect migrant workers but deprived of enforcement power is structurally incomplete. Organized crime cannot be defeated by coordination alone. Traffickers cannot be stopped by sympathy without authority. And a nation cannot claim progress if its best solution is to send its people away and manage the consequences.

True protection requires more than good intentions. It requires power, accountability, courage, and a serious commitment to building an economy where Filipinos no longer need to leave in order to live with dignity. Until these defects are addressed, the Department of Migrant Workers risks becoming a larger institution managing the same old suffering—while, in quiet government waiting rooms, the stories continue to be told, one brown envelope at a 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: 1.25M

Congressman Romeo Acop: The Speaker the House Never Had, but the Hero We Must Remember

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

I still remember the quiet urgency that pushed me to write “Congressman Romeo Acop: The Speaker that the House of Representatives Needs Today.” I was not writing to praise a man. I was writing because I was tired—tired of noise masquerading as leadership, tired of power being mistaken for greatness, tired of watching institutions drift without moral anchors. That piece came from a deep longing: a longing for order in chaos, for dignity in debate, for leadership rooted in discipline and love of country. I wrote it because I saw, standing quietly in the House of Representatives, a man who already knew how to lead even without the gavel.

That man was Romeo Acop.

I see him not as a memory frozen in the past, but as a hero we must consciously choose to remember. Not the kind of hero built by slogans or applause, but one formed by a lifetime of discipline, restraint, and faithful service. In a nation that often celebrates volume over virtue, he stood as proof that integrity still has weight, even when it stands alone.

Before politics ever shaped him, duty did. Long before microphones and plenary halls, he learned obedience, sacrifice, and accountability as a soldier and a police general. These were not mere career milestones; they were the furnace that formed his character. When he entered Congress, he did not abandon those values—he carried them with him quietly, consistently, and without compromise. He brought into legislation the same discipline he learned in uniform, and into debate the same respect for order he once enforced.

What made Romeo Acop different was not what he demanded, but what he refused to take. He refused shortcuts. He refused convenient silence. He refused to trade principle for comfort. In an environment where survival often requires compromise of conscience, he chose the harder path—to remain principled even when it was costly.

This is why I have always believed—and will continue to believe—that he was the Speaker the House never had. Not because he sought the position, but because he embodied what the position truly requires: moral authority, intellectual rigor, discipline, and deep respect for institutions. He understood that the gavel is not a symbol of power, but of responsibility. Leadership, for him, was never about domination—it was about stewardship.

Scripture captures this kind of life with quiet precision:

“The integrity of the upright guides them.”

— Proverbs 11:3

That integrity guided him—in hearings, in committee rooms, in decisions unseen by cameras. And because of that, Congress is now poorer.

We will miss his intellect.

In a chamber where noise often replaces substance, he was a thinker. He spoke with clarity, not theatrics. His arguments were grounded in experience, law, and reason—not populism. He understood systems because he had lived inside them, and he brought that depth into legislation. Without him, debates feel thinner, less anchored, less sure.

We will miss his courage.

Not the loud, performative courage, but the quiet kind—the courage to stand firm when bending would have been easier. The courage to resist political convenience. The courage to choose conscience over coalition. That kind of courage does not announce itself, but when it is gone, its absence is painfully clear.

And we will miss his patriotism most of all.

Not the kind wrapped in rhetoric, but the kind forged in service. His love of country was disciplined, restrained, and deeply Filipino. He treated public office not as entitlement, but as trust. He understood that the State exists to serve the people—and he lived that belief every day.

Now, with his sudden passing, the House of Representatives carries a silence it cannot easily explain.

When the House convenes and his seat remains quiet, there is an absence that no rulebook can fill. No roll call can summon back his questions. No committee can replace the steadiness he brought into tense rooms. The House still stands—but it stands a little less upright, a little less sure of itself, because a mind, a conscience, and a patriot are no longer there to steady it.

We will miss him in ways that cannot be legislated.

We will miss the intellect that clarified without humiliating.

We will miss the courage that stood firm without spectacle.

We will miss the patriotism that served without asking anything in return.

And perhaps the deepest sorrow of all is this: that men like Romeo Acop are often fully recognized only when their voice is gone, when their seat is empty, when their steady presence has turned into memory. We are left wondering how many moments of guidance we have lost, how many quiet corrections we will now go without, how many times the House will search for wisdom and find only noise.

Scripture whispers a painful truth to us now:

“Teach us to number our days, that we may gain a heart of wisdom.”

— Psalm 90:12

His passing forces us to number not only days, but opportunities—the opportunity to honor integrity while it still walks among us, to elevate character before it disappears, to choose conscience before it becomes absence.

The Speaker the House never had is no longer there to rise, to speak, or to vote. But what he leaves behind is heavier than any gavel: a standard that now judges us. Every shallow debate, every compromised principle, every forgotten duty will quietly echo his absence.

To remember him as a hero is not to romanticize the past. It is to feel the ache of knowing what leadership looked like—and realizing how rare it truly is. It is to carry the sorrow of knowing that the House, and the nation, must now move forward without a man who could have led it with firmness, intellect, and soul.

And so we remember him not with noise, but with a silence that hurts.

A silence that asks us to be better.

A silence that reminds us what we lost.

A silence that, if we are honest, brings tears—because we know that men like Romeo Acop do not come often, and when they are gone, something in the nation goes with them.

 _____

 *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

Walang Takot, Walang Hanggan: Isang Lipunang Natutong Masanay sa Korupsiyon

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

Isinusulat ko ito hindi dahil wala na akong pag-asa, kundi dahil ayokong manahimik habang unti-unting namamanhid ang ating lipunan. Sa bawat pagbukas ko ng balita, sa bawat ulat na may kasamang mga salitang “exposed,” “under investigation,” at “may nakulong na,” iisa pa rin ang pakiramdam na bumabalik sa akin—walang pagbabago. Parang umiikot lang tayo sa iisang bangin, paulit-ulit na nadudulas, paulit-ulit na nangangakong hindi na mauulit, pero laging bumabalik sa simula.

Nandiyan na ang flood control scandal. Hindi na ito lihim. Hindi na ito bulungan sa likod ng mga pinto ng kapitolyo. May mga imbestigasyon na, may mga dokumentong lumabas, at may mga opisyal ng DPWH sa Mindoro na nakulong na dahil sa hayagang korupsiyon sa mga insertions ng proyekto—mga linyang tahimik na isinisingit sa badyet, parang maliliit na sugat na hindi agad ramdam, pero unti-unting inuubos ang katawan ng bayan. Sa papel, may galaw ang sistema. May aksyon. May hustisya. Ngunit sa aktuwal na buhay, sa mga probinsya at siyudad, tila wala pa ring takot.

Nakakalungkot dahil kahit lantad na ang pandarambong, kahit alam na natin kung paano ninanakaw ang bilyon-bilyong pondo ng bayan, tila tuloy pa rin ang loob ng ilan na magnakaw. Parang walang aral. Parang walang konsensya. May mga politiko na tila sanay na sanay na sa ganitong kalakaran—ang mang-scam, ang manuhol, ang magkunwaring may kapangyarihan. May mga kontratistang kabisado na kung kanino lalapit at magkano ang katumbas ng katahimikan. May mga “government pictures” na ginagawang puhunan—isang logo, isang ID, isang pekeng papel—sapat na para manloko ng kapwa.

Mas masakit isipin na marami sa kanila ang hindi natatakot. Hindi sa batas. Hindi sa Diyos. Hindi sa sariling konsensya. They scam people in broad daylight. They pretend to be powerful. They usurp authority they never truly earned. Isang selfie lang kasama ang pangulo o isang mataas na opisyal—bigla na silang nagiging “malakas.” Bigla na silang nagiging untouchable. At may mga Pilipinong naloloko pa rin—dahil sa matagal nang kultura ng paghanga sa kapangyarihan, dahil sa takot na kwestyunin ang mukhang may koneksyon.

At minsan, may bumubulong na tanong sa isip ng marami: nabuwag nga ba talaga ang sindikato sa DPWH, o pinalitan lang ito ng panibagong sindikato? May mga nahuhuli, may mga napaparusahan, pero sa ilalim ng lahat ng ito, may pangambang ang nangyayari ay simpleng pagpapalit lamang ng mga pangalan, hindi ng sistema. Para bang ang upuan ay pareho pa rin—nag-iiba lang ang nakaupo. At kung ganito ang mangyayari, paulit-ulit lang tayong iikot sa parehong trahedya. Kaya mahalagang makita ng taumbayan hindi lang ang pagbagsak ng mga personalidad, kundi ang sinceridad ng reporma, ang tunay na pagbabago, at ang malinaw na transparency sa bawat hakbang. Dahil kung hindi ito mararamdaman at makikita, babalik at babalik lang ang parehong kuwento—parehong galit, parehong pangako, parehong pagkabigo.

Ngunit ang mas masakit dito ay hindi lang ang korupsiyon—kundi ang katotohanang nais nating linisin ang sistema, pero tila wala tayong maipapalit. Paano nga ba lilinisin ang pamahalaan kung ang ipapalit ay isa ring magnanakaw o kurakot? Paano aayos ang lipunan kung ang mga naghahangad mamuno ay pare-parehong galing sa iisang hulma—parehong pangalan, parehong galawan, parehong kasalanan? Wala na bang iba? Wala bang multiple choice? None of the above?

Sa dami-dami ng Pilipino, napakaraming maaaring pagpilian. May mga taong may prinsipyo. May mga taong may integridad. May mga taong malinis ang hangarin para sa bayan. Ngunit sila’y nananahimik—nasa academe, nasa propesyon, nasa komunidad—piniling umiwas sa maruming pulitika dahil alam nilang sisirain sila ng sistema bago pa sila makapasok. At habang sila’y tahimik, sila-sila pa rin ang nasa poder ng pamahalaan.

Sa dami ng ganitong sitwasyon, maraming sumisigaw ng pagbabago. People Power Revolution daw. Pero ilan na ba ang People Power na ating dinaanan? At ano ang naging bunga? Sa halip na kaayusan, mas naging magulo ang lipunan. Sa halip na pagbabago, mas dumami pa ang magnanakaw. Mas naging tuso. Mas naging garapal. Maraming sumisigaw ng pagbabago, ngunit sa totoo lang, hindi pagbabago ang nais—nais lamang pumuwesto, para sila naman ang magnakaw.

Bakit ganyan? Dahil ayaw nating harapin ang masakit na katotohanan: ang problema ay hindi lang ang lider—ang problema ay ang sistemang paulit-ulit nating pinapayagan. Ang solusyon ay hindi sigaw sa lansangan lang, kundi paggising ng isipan. Hindi na sapat ang People Power sa panahong ang galit ay madaling manipulahin at ang rebolusyon ay nagiging shortcut sa kapangyarihan.

Ang tunay na kapangyarihan ay naroon pa rin—sa pagpili. Sa balota. Sa pag-aaral. Sa pagiging mapanuri. Kailangan nating gamitin ang isip, hindi lang ang emosyon. Hindi na puwedeng tatanggap ka ng pera para bumoto. Hindi na puwedeng maging panatiko dahil minsan kang natulungan. Hindi na puwedeng ang tanong ay “Ano ang makukuha ko ngayon?” kundi “Ano ang mangyayari sa bayan bukas?”

Isipin natin ang bayan. Isipin natin ang kinabukasan. Isipin natin ang pamilya at ang mga anak na magmamana ng mga desisyong ginagawa natin ngayon. Huwag nating sukatin ang lider sa kung magkano ang ibinigay niya, kundi sa kung anong uri ng bansa ang kaya niyang itayo. Dahil ang boto ay hindi pabuya—ito ay pananagutan.

Nakikita ko rin naman ang intensyon ng pamahalaan na linisin ang lipunan. Hindi ko iyon itinatanggi. May mga operasyon, may mga pag-aresto, may mga pangalang inihahain sa publiko bilang patunay na may ginagawa. Ngunit tila kulang pa ang bigat. Dahil kung ang mensaheng nararamdaman ng tao ay “may nakukulong, pero may mas marami ang nakakalusot,” ang epekto nito ay hindi takot kundi kapal ng mukha. Nagiging sugal ang korupsiyon—kung malas ka, kulong; kung swerte ka, yaman at impluwensiya.

Ang tunay na trahedya rito ay hindi lamang ang perang ninakaw. Ang mas malalim na sugat ay ang kulturang unti-unting hinuhubog—isang kulturang nasasanay. Nasasanay sa eskandalo. Nasasanay sa galit na mabilis mapagod. Nasasanay sa imbestigasyong walang malinaw na dulo. Paulit-ulit ang siklo: may malaking isyu, may ingay, may pangako, tapos katahimikan. Hanggang makalimutan. Hanggang may susulpot na namang bago—mas garapal, mas mapanakit, mas hayag.

At dito nagiging tunay ang aking pangamba—not because corruption survives, but because it is slowly being forgiven by silence. Ang pinakanakakatakot na yugto ng isang nabubulok na lipunan ay hindi kapag lantaran ang pagnanakaw, kundi kapag ang galit ay napapalitan ng pagod, at ang pagod ay nagiging dahilan para tumingin na lang sa ibang direksyon. Kapag ang kasamaan ay hindi na kinokondena, kundi tinatanggap bilang normal.

Darating ang araw—kung hindi pa ito dumarating—na ang mga anak natin ay hindi na magtatanong kung bakit may korupsiyon, kundi kung bakit tayo nanahimik. At wala tayong maisasagot. Dahil ang katahimikan ng mabuti ay mas malakas na pahintulot kaysa sa ingay ng masasama. Sa bawat eskandalong hinayaang malimot, may isa na namang magnanakaw ang natutong huwag matakot.

Hindi tayo talo dahil mahina ang batas. Talo tayo kapag ang batas ay nagiging palabas lamang. Kapag ang pagkakulong ay nagiging simboliko, at ang hustisya ay nagiging negotiable. Kapag ang takot ay pansamantala, at ang lakas-loob ng mga kurakot ay nagiging permanente. Sa ganitong sistema, ang aral ay malinaw: magnakaw ka lang nang maayos, at lilipas din ang lahat.

Ayokong mamana ng susunod na henerasyon ang isang bansang sanay nang makalimot. Ayokong ituro sa kanila na ang pagiging disente ay kahinaan, at ang panlilinlang ay diskarte. Dahil sa sandaling iyon, hindi na pera ang ninanakaw sa atin—kinukuha na ang ating pagkatao bilang isang bayan.

Kung hindi tayo kikilos ngayon, kung papayag tayong mapagod, kung hahayaan nating lumipas na naman ito na parang dati, darating ang panahon na wala nang matitirang galit—at kasabay noon, wala na ring matitirang pag-asa. At kapag nawala ang pag-asa, ang bansa ay buhay na lamang sa mapa, pero patay na sa konsensya.

At iyon ang krimen na wala nang makukulong.

_____

 *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: 880K

The Friction Wall Trick Behind the Flood Control Scandal

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

I have come to realize that the flood control scandal in this country was never hidden—not from me, and not from anyone who truly wanted to see. It was not buried in classified documents or concealed behind silence. It stood there in plain sight, bold and documented, pressed carefully against what I now understand as a friction wall. Like an object forced against a wall with no glue or nails, it looked stable enough to ignore, secure enough to tolerate, and convincing enough to let time pass without consequence. But physics teaches a simple truth I can no longer unsee: nothing held only by pressure is ever truly secure. Gravity never stops pulling, even when everything appears still.

When I think about the friction wall trick, I see how an object stays suspended not because it is attached, but because constant force is applied. The wall pushes back, creating friction just strong enough to resist gravity—for a while. But that balance is temporary. Tiny vibrations, fatigue, and the quiet erosion of time slowly weaken the grip. Static friction always has a limit. When it finally gives way, even slightly, the illusion collapses. The fall only looks sudden because the slipping was ignored.

That, to me, is exactly how the flood control scandal survived. I saw the budgets published, the projects announced, and the signboards standing proudly along riverbanks that would later overflow and erase entire communities. I watched hearings convened, investigations promised, and reports prepared. Everything was visible—just enough to create the feeling that something was being done, just enough to slow outrage. The system did not deny corruption; it overwhelmed it with process. Responsibility was diluted across agencies, committees, and signatures until public anger no longer knew where to push. Like the object on the wall, outrage stayed suspended—held there by friction, not resolved by justice.

Then there was the money. Billions meant to protect lives from floods were siphoned away, and yet even that stolen wealth lived in a strange, suspended state. I realized that the money, like the object on the wall, was never truly free. It could not move openly. It could not be spent without fear. It could not be enjoyed without consequence. Every peso taken demanded more pressure to keep it hidden—more shell companies, more protection, more silence. What was stolen to guarantee comfort slowly became a burden.

Time did what it always does. I saw allies lose power. I saw paper trails resurface. Whispers hardened into evidence. The same billions once meant to buy influence became radioactive—too dangerous to touch, too visible to deny. Accounts froze. Assets were traced. Figures once whispered turned into case numbers. Wealth meant to secure freedom became the weight that pulled its owners toward jail cells. Corruption did not collapse because someone pushed harder, but because friction could no longer hold.

And all the while, the floods kept returning. Year after year, the same rivers rose. The same communities drowned. The same “completed” flood control projects failed when they were needed most. Water became testimony. No press release could stop it. No committee could delay it. Reality, like gravity, kept pulling the truth back into view.

This is where the lesson stopped being just about governance and became about life itself. I have seen how those who rise through corruption often appear suspended high on the wall—visible, untouchable, admired by some, and feared by many. They seem secure because pressure holds them there: power, connections, intimidation, money. But they are never truly attached. They do not stand on solid ground; they are merely pressed against it by forces that must never weaken. And time always weakens them. Allies tire. Protection fades. Fear loosens its grip. Gravity—quiet, patient, unarguable—keeps pulling.

When they fall, it is not because life is cruel. It is because life is honest. What is not built on integrity cannot remain aloft forever. The ground is not waiting in anger; it is waiting in truth. The fall is not punishment—it is consequence.

What still haunts me about the flood control scandal is not simply that corruption existed, but that we were trained to endure it—to mistake delay for justice, suspension for stability, and friction for accountability. But physics teaches me otherwise. Systems built on pressure rather than integrity do not last. Stability without honesty is not strength; it is strain.

In the end, gravity always wins. Not because it is violent, but because it is patient. And truth behaves the same way. It pulls quietly, relentlessly, until the wall can no longer hold, until the hands grow tired, until everything propped up by deception finally falls. The flood control scandal was never a secret. I now see that it was merely suspended—waiting for gravity to finish what time had already begun.

_____

 *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: 908K