What's going on? Prof dissects Senate deadlock, Defensor's 'Blue Ribbon hearing' — ANC

[0:00] Joining us now to discuss the recent political events hounding and plaguing this nation, [0:05] Professor Ronald Holmes of the De La Salle Universally Political Science Department. [0:11] Professor Holmes, nice to be talking to you today. Welcome to the program. [0:15] Good afternoon, Casey. Kamusta na? [0:17] Kayo po. Kamusta na po kayo? [0:20] Well, sinusundan tong mga kaganapan sa ating bansa. [0:24] And speaking of that, Professor Holmes, we just spoke with our correspondent, Victoria Tulad. [0:30] And she is outside the event's place in Mandaluyong City. [0:33] Supposedly, that event was supposed to begin 10 this morning. It hasn't started yet. [0:38] But I want to get your thoughts on Senator Cayetano insisting that this Blue Ribbon Committee meeting be held [0:46] and that it should push through. Your thoughts on that? [0:49] Well, maybe we can start with the fact that the Blue Ribbon Committee has been holding investigations under, [0:56] right now, we can say basically two chairpersonships. It started with Senator Merculeta. [1:04] It went to Senator Laxon. And just between those two, we've had a partial report that was produced by Senator Laxon. [1:14] And even before the partial report, there was a minority report, which was quite unheard of [1:19] because normally the report of the committee can have someone dissent to such support. [1:26] So in that sense, there has been the Blue Ribbon has done its work. [1:29] Whether it should continue is definitely something that can be discussed by the senators themselves. [1:37] But I think what has happened in the past two weeks is really perplexing. [1:42] Why the former majority insists on having their own Blue Ribbon Committee [1:47] when the new majority, basically when they held the meeting, [1:53] were simply saying that it was meant to constitute the committee. [1:55] So I'm really at a loss to explain why there's an insistence on the part of the Cayetano Group [2:04] to hold a Blue Ribbon Committee hearing, most especially, you know, for today, [2:09] outside of the venue, outside of the Senate, which is, again, something that we've not seen [2:14] over the past, since the Senate was established in 1987, or even before that. [2:20] Here's the thing, Professor Holmes, between the Marcoleta-held hearing, the Laxon-held hearing, [2:27] and now the TULFO-led, I should say, hearings, somewhere in between those is the truth. [2:36] What should the public see at this point to be able to get to that truth? [2:43] And is it naive for us to say, for the public to think that it's only the TULFO-led committee [2:51] or the Laxon-held committee who were able to arrive at a conclusion based on facts and based on truths? [3:00] Is it naive for people to think that way, that there's only one side that really is holding the truth here? [3:06] Professor? [3:07] Well, I don't think that there should be only one side that's basically pursuing the truth. [3:11] The other thing that we should also remember, Casey, is that beyond the Blue Ribbon Committee, [3:17] we've had the Ombudsman essentially investigating a number of cases to be filed. [3:22] The Ombudsman himself has mentioned that they are exploring and they're really studying [3:28] the filing of a case against former Speaker Martin O'Maldes [3:33] and even former Senate President Jesus Cudelo. [3:36] So in that sense, well, in the first place, the Blue Ribbon Committee, being a legislative committee, [3:43] their main purpose is not necessarily to uncover that truth alone. [3:47] It is really to be able to pass legislation that would prevent the early occurrence of certain anomalies. [3:54] any of their findings have to be submitted to the appropriate agency. [4:00] In our case, that's the Ombudsman. [4:02] And the Ombudsman has taken the initiative in terms of looking at all of the possible parties [4:08] that should be held accountable for the flood control project. [4:11] Now, what will uncover the flood, eventually, that will be the legal process, [4:19] the litigation that will happen in the Sandigan Bayan. [4:22] Certain cases, certain individuals have been put in jail. [4:25] Some other individuals may face certain cases. [4:29] What we need to do is to monitor how those cases will progress. [4:33] And hopefully those cases will not progress as prior cases involving corruption scandals ended up. [4:40] Professor Holmes, as you mentioned a while ago, you don't understand or you can't seem to put it together, [4:49] the insistence of the Cayetano bloc to push through with this meeting, with this hearing, [4:56] considering everything that you just said. [4:58] If there are other avenues to uncover the truth, and the Ombudsman, as you said, has already said, [5:03] that in the days to come, probably months, there is this grand conspiracy to defraud the National Treasury, [5:10] if I'm not mistaken, that's the case that they're trying to put together, [5:13] naming of the former leaders of the House, Romualdez and Escudero. [5:18] So if that's already there, and it's already in the pipeline, [5:22] and they're still insisting that this be held with the 18 former employees as their main resource persons, [5:31] what could possibly be the narrative that they're trying to spin here, or they're trying to put forth, Professor? [5:38] I think essentially the narrative that they're spinning here is related to their continued possession of the authority of the Senate. [5:46] that they don't want to let it go, and so therefore they find that they have every right, [5:52] from their perspective, a legal right, to proceed with whatever investigations they have. [5:57] The other thing I think that they've articulated in the past, [6:00] most especially for the subcommittee vice chair, Senator Marguleta, [6:04] is that they find that the processes that were implemented under former Blue Ribbon Committee chair, Ping Lakson, [6:15] is not in any way pursued, let's say more specifically, Speaker Martin Romualdez. [6:22] But even that case is not necessarily correct. [6:26] An invitation was sent to the former Speaker, Speaker Bojiddi, said that he declined. [6:34] And you know, this matter of inter-parliamentary courtesy, [6:37] even if you and I would disagree with it, [6:39] is something that has been practiced between the two chambers. [6:43] We would have hoped that that would have been waived. [6:47] But it's not something that's so easy for legislators to waive. [6:51] Even Senator Marguleta, when he was representative in the lower house, [6:56] said that that courtesy has to be upheld, [7:00] and even extended it to the courtesy towards the vice president [7:04] when it came to deliberating on her proposed budget then. [7:08] So I don't think courtesy should be given primordial importance. [7:13] I think transparency is more important than courtesy. [7:16] Unfortunately, this has been the custom and the practice [7:19] that hopefully in the coming days will have to be reviewed and reflected on [7:24] by our legislators in the interest of accountability and transparency. [7:29] Speaking of the narratives that are being spun, [7:36] the other one is outside of the Senate. [7:40] The narrative that they want the public to see [7:42] is that there is continued efforts to silence the critics of this administration. [7:50] I mean, you've seen a lot happen in the span of your career. [7:55] Meron naman talagang mga administrasyon, Professor Holmes, [7:58] na ginagamit ang buong pwersa ng pamahalaan [8:01] para patahimikin ang mga kritiko laban sa kanilang pamahalaan, [8:06] laban sa kanilang mga gawain. [8:08] But what do you see now, [8:10] with the Defensor-led, Cayetano-led, [8:13] Attorney Ferdinand Topacio-led [8:17] and Attorney Levito Baligod-led faction, [8:23] and this is what they're trying to claim, [8:25] that there is continued efforts to silence them. [8:29] Is that really the case? [8:31] Are they being silenced by this administration? [8:34] I don't think so. [8:35] The fact that you have a senior correspondent of your network there [8:38] means that they have a platform. [8:41] They have an opportunity to echo their views, [8:43] and I don't think there's any limitation [8:46] that has been imposed on anyone, [8:48] whether they're for or against a particular political group, [8:51] to appear before media. [8:54] So that silencing is not something that I see now, [8:57] compared to, let's say, [8:59] the repression or suppression free speech [9:01] that I saw when I was a young, [9:04] when I was a student and a young academic [9:05] under the dictatorship of the late President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. [9:11] So I don't feel it, I don't see it, [9:13] and I think, as I said, [9:15] that the mere fact that you have Antonio Tapasio, [9:18] former congressman, defensor, [9:21] being able to raise their points [9:23] and to bring together all of these individuals, [9:26] the only thing that they should do [9:27] is to respect also due process here [9:30] and to allow those 18 former security personnel [9:34] of allegedly, of the President Ixaldico, [9:38] plus 14 others, [9:39] not only to face the investigation that they're conducting, [9:42] but to eventually present them [9:44] when the Senate impasse is resolved [9:47] in the appropriate Blue Ribbon Committee. [9:50] Yeah, but here's what they're saying. [9:51] They're saying they're afraid to be cited in contempt [9:54] and therefore they're not going to appear there. [9:57] Ayan na naman po yung naratibo nila. [9:59] Meron silang sinasamay na baka pag... [10:02] Kasi may imbitasyon, hindi ba? [10:04] Last week, and they didn't attend. [10:07] Bagkos ang ginawa nila [10:09] ay nandun sila sa opisina ng isang senador [10:11] at dun sila nagpa-preskon. [10:13] Meron silang agam-agam, [10:15] natatakot sila, [10:17] may panggigipit na maaring mangyari. [10:19] And they can say that. [10:22] They're free to say that. [10:24] But that is their justification. [10:26] And we can only assume [10:27] that that will be their justification still [10:29] once the real Blue Ribbon Committee [10:34] is convened after tomorrow. [10:37] There's an easy solution to that. [10:39] Don't appear in the Blue Ribbon Committee. [10:40] Just come up with individual at-medabits. [10:43] This is what the lawyers have said. [10:44] Then submit it to the ombudsman [10:45] and let the ombudsman assess [10:47] the weight of that particular affidavit. [10:50] If you're really after pursuing the truth, [10:53] as I said, [10:54] the Blue Ribbon Committee [10:55] is one of those platforms [10:57] that you can use, [10:58] but it's not the appropriate one. [11:00] If you want to file a case [11:02] against a public official, [11:04] it is best to file that case [11:06] before the ombudsman. [11:07] You can even publicize [11:09] your affidavit for that matter [11:10] and let the public see it. [11:11] I don't think that there's anyone [11:13] that is prohibiting [11:14] any individual, [11:16] any group [11:17] from really making public [11:18] what they're saying. [11:20] What I've heard so far [11:22] is that the group affidavit [11:24] will not work. [11:24] Individual affidavits may work. [11:27] They should be able to attest [11:28] to the truthfulness [11:29] of that affidavit. [11:30] No need to attend [11:31] the Blue Ribbon Committee. [11:32] Submit all of them [11:33] to the ombudsman. [11:34] And then let's monitor [11:35] what the ombudsman will say [11:37] with regard to that affidavit. [11:38] If the ombudsman [11:39] simply doesn't accommodate, [11:41] then that's a cause for worry. [11:43] But if the ombudsman [11:44] articulates what are the reasons [11:46] why no further action [11:48] can be taken, [11:49] then we can assess [11:50] whether there's truthfulness, [11:51] whether that is in itself [11:53] a justified position [11:54] on the part of the ombudsman. [11:57] Let's talk about [11:58] Senator Cayetano [11:58] for a moment [11:59] before we go on [12:00] to the special session [12:01] tomorrow. [12:03] In his latest Facebook Live, [12:06] the senator [12:06] sort of saying, [12:08] in so many words, [12:10] making it appear [12:12] as if he is the one [12:14] that's the victim here. [12:16] Laban lang, [12:17] di ba, [12:17] sinabi niya. [12:18] I don't know if you saw [12:18] that Facebook Live, [12:19] pero patuloy lang daw [12:21] ang paglaban. [12:22] Meron ho bang [12:23] nanggigipit [12:23] kay Senator Alan Peter Cayetano? [12:27] I really doubt Casey. [12:31] You know, [12:31] we've seen changes [12:32] in the Senate leadership [12:34] across the period of time. [12:36] We've seen Senate leadership [12:38] change four times [12:39] in a particular session [12:41] of Congress. [12:42] So I think [12:43] it's just among them. [12:45] Now, of course, [12:46] the saying is that [12:47] there can be [12:48] involvement [12:49] on the part of Malacanang. [12:50] We know that, [12:51] that the relationship [12:52] between the executive [12:53] and the legislative [12:54] may be a relationship [12:56] where Malacanang [12:57] has some influence. [12:58] But eventually, [13:00] the one that would decide [13:01] the leadership of the Senate [13:02] would be the senators themselves. [13:04] He himself had said [13:06] that if his fellow senators, [13:08] 13 of them, [13:09] decide to form [13:10] a new leadership, [13:11] then he will relent [13:12] and give up [13:13] the Senate presidency. [13:16] Talagay ko lang naman [13:17] nanggigipit eh. [13:18] Otherwise, [13:19] every time there's a change [13:20] in the Senate leadership, [13:22] you'll have the former [13:22] president of the Senate [13:24] complaining that, [13:25] you know, [13:25] there was someone [13:26] that was pressuring them. [13:28] That, to me, [13:30] is also, [13:31] it yokes the senator, [13:33] the senators themselves, [13:36] because, you know, [13:36] they share the same constituency [13:38] as the president. [13:39] They actually, [13:40] a national constituency. [13:42] So, in terms of stature, [13:43] they're almost [13:44] at the same level [13:45] as the president [13:45] in terms of national dominance. [13:48] To say that [13:49] someone else [13:50] is having [13:51] an upper hand [13:53] and trying to restrict [13:55] their independent action, [13:57] is, to me, [13:59] a surrender [13:59] to a situation [14:00] that they actually [14:01] are empowered [14:02] to act on [14:03] as a body [14:04] and as individuals. [14:06] As I said a while ago, [14:08] you've witnessed [14:09] a lot of things [14:09] already in the span [14:10] of your career. [14:11] The fact that [14:12] Senator Cayetano [14:13] refuses, [14:14] up to this day, [14:15] refuses to step down. [14:16] There are calls [14:17] for him to resign. [14:18] He's saying [14:18] he can go anytime, [14:20] but it is the Constitution [14:21] that he's trying [14:22] to protect. [14:23] What is going on [14:25] in his head [14:27] for someone, [14:28] a political animal [14:29] like he is, [14:30] to hold on to power [14:31] in the way [14:31] that he's been [14:32] holding on to power [14:33] for the past weeks? [14:35] I think what's going on [14:37] in, at least, [14:38] I cannot really say [14:39] what's going on [14:40] in his head, [14:41] but what's going on [14:42] is really [14:42] an impasse [14:44] in the Senate [14:46] that can really [14:47] be addressed [14:48] through that [14:49] special session [14:49] tomorrow. [14:50] and until such time [14:51] that that is addressed, [14:53] I don't think [14:53] that anyone [14:54] should be [14:56] appearing in public [14:57] and saying [14:58] that, you know, [14:58] there's pressure [14:59] coming from somewhere [15:00] or there's someone [15:01] trying to control [15:02] the Senate. [15:03] I have not seen [15:04] the Senate [15:05] really as someone [15:06] that, [15:07] as an institution [15:08] that subordinates [15:09] itself too much [15:11] to the executive. [15:12] I know [15:13] that the executive [15:14] exercises influence [15:16] on the Senate [15:17] and the House, [15:18] but across the years, [15:20] I've seen how [15:20] the Senate [15:21] would repel [15:22] any attempt [15:23] on the part [15:23] of the executive. [15:25] More particularly, [15:26] let's say, [15:26] with regard to [15:27] charter change, [15:28] the Senate [15:28] has always been [15:29] a stumbling block [15:30] in any and all [15:31] attempts to change [15:31] the Constitution, [15:33] initiatives that [15:34] in the past [15:35] originated, [15:35] we know, [15:36] from the executive. [15:37] So to say [15:38] right now [15:39] that the Senate [15:39] is subordinating [15:41] itself to the [15:42] president, [15:44] I think, [15:45] is a [15:45] faulty judgment [15:47] on the part [15:48] of one senator [15:49] towards [15:50] his fellow [15:51] senators. [15:52] So you [15:53] have to [15:53] have a [15:54] good job [15:54] in the institution. [15:57] One other [15:58] personality I want [15:59] to talk about [15:59] before we move [16:00] on to the [16:00] special session [16:01] tomorrow, [16:01] former Congressman [16:02] Mike Defensor. [16:04] Can he be [16:04] trusted by the [16:05] people, [16:05] Professor? [16:08] I would have [16:09] to do a survey [16:10] as to whether [16:10] he's trusted [16:11] by the people. [16:12] He's been [16:12] quite vocal [16:13] against the [16:16] administration. [16:17] The perception [16:18] on his part [16:19] is that the [16:19] administration [16:20] has been [16:20] quite soft. [16:22] Perception [16:23] from his [16:24] end is that [16:24] he's been [16:25] the subject [16:25] of persecution [16:26] from this [16:28] administration. [16:30] Again, [16:31] Casey, [16:31] the fact [16:32] that he's [16:32] able to say [16:33] all of these [16:34] things to me [16:35] indicates that [16:36] there are no [16:37] restrictions imposed [16:39] on our freedom [16:40] of speech, [16:42] on restating [16:44] how we feel. [16:46] Now, [16:46] whether the [16:47] people trust [16:47] him, [16:48] we see it. [16:49] There are [16:49] certain sectors [16:50] that do. [16:51] There are [16:51] certain [16:51] individuals that [16:52] do give [16:53] importance to [16:54] what he's [16:54] saying. [16:55] But eventually, [16:56] he will have [16:57] to give [16:57] corroborating [16:58] evidences with [17:00] regard to his [17:01] assertions, [17:02] evidences that [17:04] we have not [17:04] seen so far. [17:06] You have a group [17:07] of affidavits. [17:08] You have five [17:09] of the 18 [17:09] issuing individual [17:11] affidavits. [17:12] You know, [17:12] my challenge [17:13] to probably [17:15] the Ombudsman [17:16] or the Department [17:18] of Justice [17:19] is to release [17:20] all of these [17:20] affidavits and [17:21] let the public [17:22] find out [17:22] essentially what [17:23] they put there [17:24] and whether [17:25] after reading [17:27] it, [17:27] the truthfulness, [17:28] the basis [17:30] of such [17:30] assertions. [17:31] Because at this [17:32] point, [17:32] we only are [17:33] relying on [17:34] statements coming [17:35] from Attorney [17:36] Baligod. [17:37] and former [17:38] Congressman Mike [17:39] Defensor. [17:40] Let's talk about [17:40] what's going to [17:41] happen tomorrow. [17:42] The President [17:42] has called for [17:43] a special [17:44] session. [17:45] He enumerated [17:46] a lot of [17:47] things, [17:47] right? [17:47] But those [17:48] things cannot [17:48] be done [17:49] until and [17:50] unless the [17:51] Senate is [17:52] fully convened [17:53] and the [17:54] row is [17:55] fully resolved. [17:57] What are [17:57] your expectations [17:58] coming into [18:00] the special [18:00] session tomorrow, [18:01] Professor Holmes? [18:03] I would say [18:04] that just to be [18:05] safe, I have [18:05] two expectations, [18:06] Casey. [18:07] One is that [18:08] the impasse [18:09] will continue [18:09] and the other [18:10] one is the [18:10] impasse will [18:11] be resolved [18:11] when a [18:12] senator joins [18:14] the new [18:15] majority and [18:16] you have 13 [18:17] out of the [18:18] 22 constituting [18:19] a new [18:19] majority. [18:21] And they're [18:22] able to [18:23] elect a new [18:24] set of [18:24] officials for [18:25] that matter. [18:26] But should [18:27] no one [18:27] change his [18:28] or her [18:29] mind and [18:30] still take [18:30] it out [18:31] with the [18:31] Cayetano [18:32] group, [18:33] then you'll [18:33] have really [18:34] an impasse, [18:35] a continuing [18:35] impasse of [18:36] 12 against [18:37] 10 who [18:39] are unable [18:40] to elect [18:41] a senator [18:42] president. [18:43] And the [18:43] only way you [18:43] can resolve [18:44] that impasse [18:45] is that if [18:46] any party, [18:47] any one of the [18:48] senators brings [18:49] it up to the [18:49] Supreme Court [18:50] unless the [18:51] Supreme Court [18:51] decide as it [18:52] did in the [18:54] 1949 case, [18:56] I think, [18:56] if I'm not [18:57] mistaken, [18:58] Bellino [18:58] off-land [19:00] side versus [19:01] Cuenco. [19:03] So that's [19:04] my expectation. [19:06] It's hard [19:06] for me to [19:06] say, [19:07] although [19:08] Senator [19:08] Joe [19:08] Vignoneva [19:09] appeared in [19:10] a video [19:11] this weekend [19:12] saying that [19:13] he's ready [19:13] to work. [19:15] I would [19:15] not in [19:16] any way [19:16] assess that [19:17] as that [19:17] he's ready [19:18] to join. [19:19] And even [19:19] Senator [19:19] Tuflo [19:20] mentioned [19:20] it. [19:21] There's no [19:21] certainty. [19:22] They hope. [19:24] And that's [19:24] well, [19:25] for the benefit [19:26] of the [19:26] country, [19:26] I think [19:27] it's [19:27] better [19:28] for a [19:29] new [19:29] majority [19:29] to be [19:31] established [19:32] immediately [19:32] after the [19:33] Senate [19:34] reconvince [19:35] at the [19:36] start of [19:36] this [19:36] special [19:37] session. [19:38] So you [19:38] mentioned [19:39] two [19:39] expectations, [19:40] but what [19:40] do you [19:40] think [19:41] should [19:41] happen [19:41] in [19:42] reality [19:42] tomorrow? [19:43] You kind [19:43] of touched [19:44] on it [19:44] a while [19:44] ago [19:44] already. [19:46] Well, [19:46] I'm [19:47] praying, [19:47] hoping [19:48] that [19:48] he'll [19:49] have [19:49] 13. [19:51] That's [19:52] my [19:52] expectation. [19:53] That is [19:53] what I [19:54] think [19:54] should [19:54] happen. [19:56] And [19:57] the [19:58] president [19:58] in the [19:59] middle [19:59] of [20:00] all [20:00] this, [20:00] a lot [20:01] of [20:01] people [20:01] were [20:01] already [20:02] asking [20:03] him [20:03] to [20:03] call [20:03] for [20:04] a [20:04] special [20:04] session [20:04] as soon [20:07] as [20:07] the [20:10] impasse [20:10] happened. [20:11] But the [20:11] fact that [20:11] he called [20:12] it for [20:12] tomorrow, [20:13] do you [20:14] think it's [20:14] a little [20:14] too late? [20:15] Or do [20:15] you think [20:15] he's [20:16] right on [20:16] time? [20:17] Or do [20:18] you expect [20:18] any more [20:19] from the [20:21] president to [20:22] sort of [20:22] show the [20:24] kind of [20:24] leader that [20:25] he is? [20:27] Yes. [20:27] The [20:28] president [20:29] actually [20:29] could call [20:29] a special [20:30] session of [20:30] Congress at [20:31] any time. [20:32] That's in [20:32] the [20:32] Constitution. [20:33] That's [20:33] very clear. [20:34] And that's [20:34] the way [20:34] it's stated [20:35] in the [20:35] Constitution. [20:36] The [20:36] president [20:36] can call [20:37] for a [20:37] special [20:37] session of [20:40] Congress [20:40] at any [20:40] time. [20:41] That he [20:41] delayed [20:42] might be [20:43] for a [20:43] particular [20:44] reason. [20:44] He [20:44] was not [20:45] informed [20:46] that the [20:47] new [20:47] majority [20:48] does not [20:49] have an [20:50] additional [20:50] member to [20:51] allow them [20:51] to really [20:52] create a [20:53] new [20:53] leadership [20:54] for the [20:54] Senate. [20:55] He [20:55] might have [20:56] been informed [20:56] that there [20:57] is a [20:57] new [20:57] member. [20:58] He might [20:59] have been [20:59] assured that [20:59] if you [21:00] call for a [21:00] special [21:00] session, [21:01] we'll have [21:02] at least [21:02] 13. [21:03] It would [21:04] be naive of [21:05] us to [21:05] say that [21:06] the president [21:06] would just [21:07] call for a [21:08] special [21:08] session and [21:09] then there [21:09] would be [21:09] an impasse [21:10] again still [21:11] in the [21:11] Senate. [21:12] So again, [21:14] my expectation [21:15] of what should [21:16] happen might [21:16] be supported [21:18] by the fact [21:18] that the [21:19] president and [21:20] the members [21:21] of the [21:22] majority [21:22] are all [21:23] pragmatic [21:24] individuals. [21:26] Eventually, [21:27] if something [21:27] bad happens [21:28] again tomorrow, [21:29] their leadership [21:30] would be [21:31] questioned. [21:32] And I think [21:33] they're unwilling [21:34] to do that. [21:34] They're unwilling [21:35] to face that. [21:36] So I think [21:36] they basically [21:37] iron out [21:38] all of the [21:38] problems. [21:40] And my [21:41] expectation, [21:42] I will not [21:43] bet on it, [21:43] Casey, [21:44] it would be [21:44] 100 pesos. [21:47] There'll be a [21:48] majority [21:48] tomorrow. [21:50] A new [21:50] majority [21:51] in this ending. [21:52] The fact [21:52] that this [21:53] is happening [21:53] 2026 [21:55] with less [21:57] than two [21:57] years to go [21:58] before this [21:58] term ends [21:59] for President [22:00] Bongbong [22:00] Marcos Jr., [22:01] that he [22:02] is [22:03] hurtling [22:06] challenge [22:06] after challenge [22:07] after challenge [22:08] after challenge. [22:09] But nonetheless, [22:10] there were a [22:10] string of [22:11] challenges [22:11] that peppered [22:12] his presidency. [22:14] With this [22:14] latest one, [22:15] do you think [22:15] he's still [22:16] able to [22:17] end his [22:18] presidency [22:19] the way [22:20] he wanted [22:21] to? [22:22] The very [22:23] reason why [22:23] he began [22:24] this presidency [22:26] to begin [22:27] with? [22:27] And as [22:28] any president [22:29] would want [22:29] it, [22:30] you don't [22:30] want to [22:30] leave the [22:32] presidency [22:32] with your [22:33] numbers down. [22:33] Do you [22:34] think he [22:34] still has [22:35] enough of [22:35] a runway [22:36] to pull [22:37] his numbers [22:38] up? [22:39] Well, [22:40] if a [22:40] president [22:41] started [22:41] with a [22:42] very clear [22:42] reform [22:42] agenda, [22:44] this would [22:44] not have [22:44] happened. [22:46] I think [22:46] admittedly, [22:48] Bongbong Marcos [22:49] did not come [22:50] into the [22:50] position with [22:51] a clear [22:52] reform agenda. [22:53] He was [22:54] in an [22:55] alliance [22:56] with the [22:57] Dutertes. [22:59] The alliance [22:59] broke off. [23:01] Since that [23:02] time, there [23:02] have been [23:03] several [23:03] problems that [23:05] beset the [23:06] administration, [23:07] including the [23:07] external problem [23:08] that we have [23:09] right now with [23:09] the continuing [23:10] conflict in [23:11] Iran. [23:11] and so in [23:14] the remaining [23:15] months of [23:15] his presidency, [23:17] I'm afraid [23:17] that unless [23:18] he really [23:19] pushes himself [23:20] to the [23:21] limit, [23:21] those reforms [23:22] will not [23:23] really come [23:23] about. [23:24] I think [23:24] more and [23:25] more we're [23:25] seeing [23:26] compromises [23:27] on the [23:28] part of [23:29] the president [23:29] towards other [23:31] policymakers, [23:32] more specifically [23:33] the legislature. [23:34] So I don't [23:35] see really [23:36] that much [23:36] of an [23:37] interference [23:37] or intervention. [23:39] I see much [23:41] more of a [23:42] weakness on [23:43] the part of [23:43] the president [23:44] given that [23:44] he has to [23:45] address many [23:47] concerns, [23:48] which requires [23:49] the cooperation [23:50] of the [23:51] legislature. [23:53] And he [23:54] has not [23:55] been as [23:55] assertive as [23:56] former presidents [23:57] with regard to [23:58] the reform [23:58] agenda. [23:59] I'm talking [24:00] about two [24:01] former presidents [24:02] here, [24:03] Lamos, [24:03] for example, [24:04] in 1992 [24:04] and even [24:05] Pinoy [24:06] in 2010. [24:08] So if [24:10] you don't [24:11] come up [24:11] with a [24:11] clear reform [24:12] agenda, [24:13] at the [24:13] start, [24:13] it will [24:14] be harder [24:14] to push [24:15] for it, [24:16] especially [24:16] at the [24:17] tail end [24:17] and with [24:18] the [24:18] trouble [24:19] of [24:19] the [24:19] administration [24:20] as [24:20] Bongbong [24:21] Marcos [24:21] has at [24:22] this [24:22] point. [24:22] We're [24:23] going to [24:23] have to [24:23] leave it [24:24] at that. [24:24] Pretty [24:24] soon we're [24:25] going to [24:25] be talking [24:25] again this [24:26] time about [24:26] yes, [24:27] the impeachment [24:28] and also [24:29] the upcoming [24:30] State of the [24:30] Nation [24:30] address. [24:31] Let's not [24:31] forget that's [24:32] a few weeks [24:33] away as [24:33] well. [24:34] In the [24:34] meantime, [24:34] we're going [24:34] to have [24:35] to thank [24:35] you for [24:35] now. [24:35] Professor [24:36] Ronald Holmes [24:36] of the [24:37] De La Salle [24:37] University [24:38] Political [24:38] Science [24:39] Department [24:39] as always. [24:40] Great to [24:41] talk to you. [24:42] From there [24:43] we're going [24:43] to take [24:43] a quick [24:43] break.