At a forum hosted by the Asian Media Information and Communication Center last Friday, I had the opportunity to paint a picture of the conditions that journalists labour under while covering President Duterte. With Marites Vitug’s own take, it was meant to prompt a discussion.
President Duterte is an unusual subject, different from most other presidents, in several ways. A large part of the challenge of covering him can be explained by these differences. Let me cite four related pairs of unusual.
He was a truly reluctant candidate. This helps us understand why, six months after the election, he can still startle with unexpected talk about his readiness to give up his post. He is the only president who speaks of resigning if certain policies are already set in place, who talks of sitting down with alleged coup plotters, who pledges to leave the presidency if his critics can meet certain (admittedly impossible) requirements.
At the same time, he is the one president who is fully committed to using the full range of presidential powers, the one who casually mentions imposing martial law or suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, who threatens to marshal legislative consensus to abolish an office created by law, who readily takes to the bully pulpit to name suspect oligarchs or suspected criminals.
He is the most emotional of our presidents. He cried openly at his mother’s tomb when he was elected; he often says what is exactly on his mind and gives in to anger. Seeing his close friend Bato dela Rosa weep at the Senate hearing last Wednesday, I realised that the Duterte administration may be said to practice what we can call the politics of emotion.
At the same time, he is proudly idiosyncratic and does not think twice about breaking tradition or protocol. He has held press conferences after midnight; he has taken questions before leaving for international summits and added six hours to his flight to Peru just to avoid a stopover in the US.
He plays language games. As president-elect, for instance, he vowed not to conduct interviews until the end of his term. He meant the end of his term as mayor.
At the same time, he uses coarse, sometimes abusive language. He has repeatedly stated that he is not a statesman. He did not run for such an office, he said once. No such office exists, he said another time. Well, this may be the first legacy of the president’s. He seems to have given permission to many of us to speak with F and with P words. He did not only make possible the surreptitious burial of the remains of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos; we can make the case that the online abuse we have seen in the wake of the burial would not have been possible without his own example.
He talks too much. Allies, such as Sen. Richard Gordon, say the same thing.
Moreover, he speaks against his own self-interest. On Aug. 21, for instance, he spent the first 15 minutes of his news conference speaking about what he did as prosecutor and mayor: He said they used to plant evidence, to plant intrigue.
Hence, the questions we ask, the approach we take, during coverage often revolve around these, because these are new, unusual and controversial.
Over and above these personal characteristics, the president has also set in motion potentially or actually divisive policies. I will mention only the three that, in my view, have proven to be the most controversial.
First, the killings. No other president has run for office on the promise that he would kill thousands of fellow Filipinos. In the last five months, more people have been killed in the so-called war on drugs than Marcos murdered during the martial rule.
Second, the under-prepared pivot away from long-time ally the US and toward neighborhood bully China. We all should support seeking a truly independent foreign policy, but there is no need to create enemies.
Third, the rehabilitation of the Marcoses. The burial in the Libingan ng mga Bayani, which Imee Marcos correctly said was the result of the work of the president and Supreme Court, is a symbol. It means one thing: The Marcoses are so back.
The Duterte campaign promised that, with his election, change was coming. Whether you think the promised change is for good or for ill, I think we can all agree that change is truly here.
By John Nery
John Nery is the editor in chief of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, which is published in Manila. –Ed.
