Tomorrow, parties and groups with a stake in the Bangsamoro peace process will take part in an unprecedented recommitment ceremony. The initiative is led by Geneva-based Principles for Peace Foundation, in partnership with INCITEGov, Initiatives for International Dialogue, and the Gaston Z. Ortigas Peace Institute.
What ARE these principles for peace? And is a recommitment ceremony, undertaken 10 years after the signing of the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro, really necessary?
To answer these and related questions, Principles for Peace executive director Hiba Qasas, former presidential adviser on the peace process Ging Deles, and Gaston Z. Ortigas Peace Institute executive director Karen Tañada join me IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE—tonight at 8pm!
In 1889, some time between February 17 and February 22, Rizal wrote his long letter in Tagalog to the valiant women of Malolos. He concluded his letter with seven principles, the sixth of which reads as follows:
“Ang tao’y inianak na parisparis, hubad at walang tali. Di linalang ng Dios upang maalipin, di binigyan ng isip para pabulag, at di hiniyasan ng katuiran at ng maulol ng iba. Hindi kapalaloan ang di pag samba sa tao, ang pag papaliwanag ng isip at ang paggamit ng matuid sa anomang bagay. Ang palalo’y ang napasasamba, ang bumubulag sa iba, at ang ibig papanigin ang kaniyang ibig sa matuid at katampatan.”
(The text is taken from the copy Teodoro Kalaw included in his Epistolario Rizalino, specifically Volume II. Scroll to page 153 of the PDF file.)
In 2013, I tried my hand at translating the seven principles. This was how I rendered the sixth:
“Man is born equal, naked and without chains. Not created by God to be enslaved, not gifted with intelligence to be deceived, and not endowed with reason to be fooled by others. It is not vanity to refuse to worship a fellow human, to enlighten intelligence, and to use reason in all things. What is vanity is making one’s self an object of worship, keeping others in ignorance, and imposing one’s will on what is right and just.”
(This piece is included in Radical: Readings in Rizal and History.)
For 2024, I hope to complete an English translation of the entire letter, as part of an exciting pamphlet series to be published by San Anselmo Press. This is how I would translate the sixth principle now:
“Humans are born equal, naked and without chains. Not created by God to be enslaved, not gifted with intelligence to be deceived, and not graced with reason to be fooled by others. It is not pride to refuse to worship any man, to enlighten the mind and to use reason in all things. What is pride is wanting to be worshipped, deceiving others, and willing one’s desires above reason and justice.”
There are many roles, and no shortage of talent, but there is also only one real answer. The last of a three-part opinion series, published in Rappler on September 2, 2022.
The news that former vice president Leni Robredo has been named a Hauser Leader at the Harvard Kennedy School for the coming semester thrilled many of her supporters, but it also deepened the lingering doubt among other supporters that Robredo is not returning to politics.
The prestigious fellowship, aside from being a recognition of exemplary leadership qualities that the famous school wants its students to make their own, gives Robredo the opportunity to spend a few months in academic retreat in the United States. But it is time away, not only from the daily nitty-gritty of establishing Angat Buhay NGO, in her words, as the “largest volunteer center” in the country, but also from the grittier daily work of establishing a viable political opposition.
This is not to begrudge her the latest of many honors; she surely deserves a break from nine years of unremitting political work. (It is very much a break in the Robredo sense: not a rest from labor, but a break through a different kind of work.) And it is only for about three months.
But the fears about her possibly and finally turning her back on active politics are real, shared—and reasonable. At its most basic, politics really is the art of the possible. But that necessarily practical art is conditioned by intangibles, like momentum and personality and mood and fate.
The political opposition needs to battle its way out of something worse than mere frustration or apathy. The second of a three-part opinion series, published in Rappler on August 31, 2022.
There is something final about losing an election. Even though the promise of regular elections consoles many of the defeated, the path to recovery—of pride, or property pawned, or purpose—can be so dark as to loom like a dead end.
Not even the experience of working with a genuine people’s movement can dispel this seeming finality; if anything, it may even sharpen the sense of defeat. Many who supported the Robredo-Pangilinan ticket must have thought the movement-powered campaign had come close to possible victory; it only needed more time. The total number of votes earned, 15 million, was (and is) bracing when seen in the context of the campaign’s start; having organized some of the largest election rallies in Philippine history, and having experienced a real surge in support in the last days of the campaign (an increase of about 5%, equivalent to over 2.5 million votes), allies and volunteers must have felt a deeper sense of disappointment when the total came up short.
That explains the sense of frustration, the depression that sometimes manifests itself as apathy (for instance, through the willful withholding of help from the needy who voted for the wrong candidate), or the self-defeating blame-passing that is roiling the Robredo base of voters. This week, we’ve even seen volunteers who had given their all turn on the former vice president herself, because to their mind she has failed to fight back decisively against those who spread lies about her on social media. A successful revolution may devour its children, but an unsuccessful campaign consumes its parents.
The war on Ninoy Aquino’s legacy is a fight the political opposition should welcome, and win. The first of a three-part opinion series, published in Rappler on August 30, 2022.
It wasn’t a surprise, but for many who recognize Ninoy Aquino’s heroism, the orchestrated attacks on his legacy on the anniversary of his assassination, subverting the very meaning of his martyrdom, still came as a shock. Maybe it was the brazenness of the deceitful counterclaims, or maybe it was the sheer scale of the networked campaign, or maybe it was the sinking sense that a new nightmare in disinformation and historical denialism had begun—but the blow that shocked many into a defensive crouch was visceral, real.
Can all of that history really be denied? The fact that he was killed by Marcos’s soldiers, the fact that millions of people turned out for his funeral, the fact that his sacrifice galvanized the opposition, the fact that his death in 1983 led to the end of the Marcos regime in 1986: Can all of that be deliberately forgotten, or reinterpreted, or hashtagged away?
I first met FVR when I was a young staff assistant to Oscar Villadolid of San Miguel Corporation, and he was the defense secretary. His first words to me were to this effect: I’m going to parachute into [I forget which area, and which unit, he mentioned] to bring beer to the troops. Want to come along? I declined, of course. (The beer part must have been because of the SMC connection.) This picture was taken almost three decades later, at a retirement ceremony for Ambassador Rodolfo Severino.
He will be counted among the greats—but not for his consequential presidency. Published in Rappler on August 11, 2022.
The first Washington Post obituary on the late president Fidel V. Ramos, written by Philippine reporter Regine Cabato a few hours after his passing on July 31, concluded with an extended passage from a speech I had written almost a year ago. In it, I asserted before an online forum on presidential legacies that Ramos had “passed the test of time”—by which I meant history had established a firm enough foothold (or beachhead, to use a metaphor Ramos the soldier would have liked) on which to base a favorable judgment of him.
In the judgment of history, Ramos will be ranked among the great for his defense of the constitutional order. I had argued then: “There is no gainsaying his constitutional sense, and his fidelity to it. When I think of the possibilities open to him, during the era of the coup attempts, to choose the other side—which would have completely changed the country’s history—I appreciate all the more that he knew his limits. Constitutionalism is, at its core, about a sense of limits.”
Three moments defined Ramos’ career, and character, as a constitutionalist.
The unexpected controversy over the digital archiving of Martial Law material reveals a failing. Published in Rappler on July 20, 2022.
It was startling, but characteristic. Two days after a newspaper profiled a volunteer who was archiving Marcos-era material, the activist writer Katrina Stuart Santiago took to Twitter to make three sweeping accusations: First, that “others started taking and creating their own repositories” of Martial Law material “from” the “primary repository” she said she “started in September 2021.” Second, that news organizations should have known about her role, “but they don’t” and weren’t “interested in it at that time.” And third: “of course in the Philippines only those who hustle for media mileage get it.”
The first and third accusations are outright falsehoods. The second may be true; I was one of those journalists who did not know about this particular project. But it may also be false; I do not know if other journalists knew about it and (a) did report on it or (b) wanted to report on it but did not get the editors’ okay or (c) did not care at all. In the context of her other accusations, however, the second is, at the minimum, misleading; it paints a picture of media complicity.
All the talk of internal conflict in the new administration aside, the President and his family are committed to four overriding objectives. Published in Rappler on July 7, 2022.
What can we expect from the second Marcos presidency?
I suggested an initial answer in a column last March: First, Ferdinand Marcos Jr. will “concentrate power in his office to authoritarian levels—without the need to impose military rule nationwide.” And second, he will “complete the rehabilitation of his father’s reputation, and … establish the Marcos legacy as mainstream history.”
Last April, at a forum on the future of Philippine democracy organized by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, I expanded on the second idea.
I proposed that we can expect the Marcos family to pursue four overriding objectives; I called them the four REs.
The movement that supported Robredo was also political. Published in Rappler on July 5, 2022.
True to her word, former vice president Leni Robredo launched the Angat Buhay non-government organization (under the registered name of Angat Pinas Inc.) on July 1, the day after she stepped down from office. And in keeping with her promise of continuity of service, the day before the launch she signed a contract with the Rotary Club of Makati, Southern Luzon State University, and the provincial government of Quezon to construct a dormitory for indigent students.
These twin events had all the Robredo hallmarks: prepared, innovative, calibrated, leveraging personal and institutional goodwill into an initiative that meets an actual need of a disadvantaged sector. And they help explain why the transformation of the massive “people’s campaign” that supported Robredo into what she hopes will be “the largest volunteer center in Philippine history” (as she said during her thanksgiving rally on May 13) is welcome, inspirational, necessary.
But the volunteer-led movement that coalesced around Robredo and her running mate, former senator Kiko Pangilinan, did not only promise the kind of leveraged initiative that improved people’s lives and that defined the work of the Office of the Vice President under Robredo; it also promised the kind of responsible, honest, and effective politics that Robredo and Pangilinan sought to practice.
In other words, the movement that supported Robredo and Pangilinan was also political.
The rehabilitation of the Marcos name will continue to rely on many factors; one crucial strategy is negation, the erasure of essential distinctions. Published in Rappler on May 31, 2022.
The day after Congress proclaimed him president-elect, Ferdinand Marcos Jr. held a news conference with only three news organizations in attendance. GMA Network, the country’s largest, was one of the three invited; the others were the two religion-owned broadcasting channels favored by and partial to the Marcos presidential campaign, Net 25 and SMNI.
None of the other news organizations were invited. In fact, the Marcos campaign team issued an advisory that the BBM Media Center, where the selective news conference was eventually held, would “still be closed” that Thursday. The rest of Philippine media were left to scramble and follow the briefing on social media.
The news conference, the president-elect’s first ever, was wrong on many levels. Let me highlight a troubling aspect of it that implements, and explains, a key Marcos Jr. communications strategy. By lumping the openly partisan SMNI and Net 25 with independent, professional GMA, the Marcos administration-in-the-making was continuing its attempt to legitimize the two other channels.
Or, to be more precise, it was continuing its long-term effort to erase any significant distinctions between news organizations like GMA (institutionally meek when it comes to press freedom issues, but the home of courageous, highly competent individual journalists and numerous prizewinning programs of high journalistic quality) and the Marcos propaganda infrastructure, including its nascent versions of alternate-reality network Fox News. In other words, the selective news conference was yet another attempt at flattening the discourse.
This is a signature Marcos strategy, which the recent elections placed in sharp relief.
The democratic and progressive forces that coalesced around Leni Robredo have their work cut out for them, starting with reading the election results right. Published in Rappler on May 18, 2022.
An electoral map of the Philippines that is a beautiful visualization of the results of the May 9 elections is making the rounds on social media. Painstakingly rendered by Migs Caldeo, it tracks the presidential election by coloring every city or municipality won by Ferdinand Marcos Jr. green, every one won by Leni Robredo pink; it also shows those cities or municipalities in the Visayas and Mindanao won by Manny Pacquiao (purple) and those in Mindanao won by Faisal Mangondato (orange).
“Leading presidential candidate in each city or municipality as of 16 May 2022,” the caption reads. “Edited using Paint and extreme amounts of boredom,” Caldeo says in another tweet.
I cannot independently verify the election data used; Caldeo says he used data from news websites, and I assume he is mainly referring to election results distributed to news organizations through the Commission on Elections’ transparency server before it was decommissioned on May 13. But the map seems to accurately track the partial and unofficial results available to the public. (I cross-checked the outcome of about two dozen places, and found them faithfully reflected.)
The result is a striking piece of data art: beautiful, precise—and misleading.
As far as I can tell, from the conversion stories I’ve read or heard about or have had told to me, the weakening in Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s pre-election survey ratings can be attributed to three issues: The unpaid taxes on the estate the dictator left behind; the continuing dishonesty about his education; and the failure to take part in competitive presidential debates.
Many other issues attach to Marcos Junior’s name, especially the plunder and the human rights violations that he and his family committed during the dictatorship, but in my reading, these have been either discounted or explained away by years of pro-Marcos propaganda or outright disinformation on social media. (I regret coming to this conclusion, but that is the reality I see.)
What has gained traction in recent months is a set of three related issues. To be sure, these push factors are complemented by the pull factors of the other campaigns, especially those of Vice President Robredo’s surging, volunteer-driven movement and, for a time, from Manila Mayor Isko Moreno’s chill, plain-speaking appeal. But in terms of vulnerabilities, these three are Marcos’s weaknesses.
The first time Senator Ping Lacson ran for president, in 2004, he won over 10% of the vote. In the last two Pulse Asia surveys, the latest of which was released on April 6, he is polling at 2%.
This is not a surprise, because Philippine history teaches an unforgiving lesson: Either you make it to the presidency on your first try, or you never make it at all. The corollary to this history lesson is even more bleak: If you lose in your first attempt, you will fare worse in your next.
In 1992, Miriam Defensor Santiago earned 4.4 million votes, placing a close second to Fidel Ramos; in 1998, she got less than 800,000 votes. In 1998, Raul Roco won 3.7 million votes and landed a distant third, in an election Joseph Estrada won by a landslide; in 2004, his total dropped to a little over 2 million. In 2004, when Gloria Arroyo won, Eddie Villanueva garnered a little under 2 million votes, ending fifth and last; in 2010, he won 1.1 million votes.
If history is any guide, then, Lacson will get substantially fewer votes in 2022 than the 3.5 million he received in 2004. His best survey result in 2004 was in the first half of March, a month after the official campaign started; 12% of voters said they would vote for him. His best in the 2022 election cycle is exactly half that, at 6%.
Lacson is headed for certain defeat. Despite having learned an important lesson from his 2004 run, which is to campaign this time with a vice presidential running mate, his candidacy has failed to capture the public’s imagination, to establish himself as the alternative, or to offer a compelling rationale for rewriting history.
Last week was a true turning point for the presidential candidacy of Vice President Leni Robredo. Fresh from another strong debate performance and the launch of a coordinated, month-long house-to-house campaign on Sunday, April 3, she launched impressive sorties into six provinces, which included large rallies in Duterte country (35,000 in Tagum, Davao del Norte on Thursday, April 7), in the so-called Solid North (76,000 in Dagupan, Pangasinan on Friday, April 8), and in Gloria Arroyo’s bailiwick (an extraordinary 220,000 in San Fernando, Pampanga on Saturday, April 9). The results of the latest Pulse Asia survey, conducted March 17 to 21, were released in the middle of the week, on April 6; they reflected a surge in her support for the first time since the large, joyous, volunteer-driven rallies became a trademark of her campaign. And they spurred greater enthusiasm among her volunteers, helping drive even more supporters to the rallies in Pangasinan and Pampanga.
If the Pulse Asia survey is an accurate guide, the gap between Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the survey leader, and Robredo remains wide; about three and a half weeks ago, he polled at 56% (down from 60); she polled at 24 (up from 15). Robredo remains very much the underdog; with only 28 days to Election Day, she needs to continue playing catch-up. The Robredo momentum, or “Ro-mentum,” to coin a term, is real. The question, as I asked on March 28, is about time, or the lack of it: Is there enough time for the momentum to swing all the way to victory?
The surge in support for Vice President Leni Robredo’s candidacy is real, though it has yet to be reflected in a publicly available scientific survey. The large rallies and the pivotal declarations of support from local officials are only the most audible signals in all the election noise. It may only be a question of time, or the lack of it: Is there enough time for the momentum to swing all the way to victory?
But I find it unhelpful, and even unhealthy, to think in terms of only one hue of pink as a symbol of support; to say, for instance, that after the massive rally in Malolos on March 5 and the declaration of support from Governor Dan Fernando on March 14, “Bulacan is pink.” I can understand why it is said; it is both rightful recognition (of a partial fact) and rah-rah rhetoric (to boost morale and drive the campaign). But the reality is there are various shades of pink—and Robredo doesn’t need all provinces and cities to turn full pink.
How many votes does Robredo need in order to win the presidency? I will try to answer this using regional vote totals.
The latest Pulse Asia survey, conducted in the third week of February but whose results were released only on Monday, March 14, shows the main presidential candidates running in place. The February results are fundamentally the same as in January: Ferdinand Marcos Jr still at 60, Leni Robredo at 15 (down from 16), Isko Moreno at 10 (up by two), Manny Pacquiao still at 8, Ping Lacson at 2 (down from 4). The movements are within the survey’s margin of error of plus or minus 2.
To those of us following the campaigns closely, Pulse Asia’s February survey is disorienting—not because of the actual results, but because of the lack of movement in the results. A static survey to explain a dynamic race can cause political vertigo.
The dictator’s son will seek to reshape the Philippines in his father’s bloated image. Published in Rappler on March 2, 2022.
In 2011, Ferdinand Marcos Jr. proposed changing Rizal Day from December 30 to June 19. He was a new senator, in his first year in office; he filed Senate Bill 2743 on June 18, the day before the country marked the 150th birth anniversary of the national hero. “The birthday of our national hero should always be a day of celebration of his life and of his great contribution to the country’s dependence from foreign domination,” he said.
As I had the chance to explain on the ABS-CBN News Channel that same week, that proposal to change Rizal Day from the date of his execution by Spanish colonial authorities in 1896 to the date of his birthday in 1861 was a mistake. December 30 is our oldest secular holiday—observed by the revolutionaries exiled in Hong Kong in 1897, the subject of a proclamation by Emilio Aguinaldo in 1898, constantly observed since then. The revolutionary generation, who were directly inspired by Rizal, saw his martyrdom as a defining moment in the shaping of our history. Six presidents—including Marcos Junior’s own father, on two occasions—took their oath of office on December 30, at a time when presidential inaugurations were integrated into Rizal Day rites.
Nothing came of the proposal; on hindsight, the bill seemed to have been filed as a belated attempt to extend (or to capitalize on) the significance of the Rizal sesquicentennial, the first to mark the 150th birth anniversary of the heroes (including Bonifacio, Mabini, Aguinaldo) born in the 1860s.
What does Marcos Junior’s willingness to change the date of Rizal Day imply for a second Marcos presidency? I have an idea.
In the last two days, a video interview of a tricycle driver in Cupang, Muntinlupa, has gone viral. Ronald Carigo was asked one question—What do you look for in a president?—and he gave an eloquent answer that ran for a little under four minutes. Everything I look for in a president can be found in “Attorney Leni Robredo,” he said.
Like many others, I was moved by Carigo’s eloquence; his answer, mainly in Filipino but with some English strategically deployed, was substance that had found the right, the plain, style. But what raised his answer to another level was his earnest simplicity; he was Everyman, speaking truth on behalf of the powerless.
As I have written before, and as I repeat on my election program on Rappler every time we air, “it isn’t just elections as usual.” The country’s democratic experiment is facing a make-or-break test on May 9, and regardless of how much Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Sara Duterte pay lip service to the ideals of democracy, their families have benefited mightily from either democratic collapse (the Marcos regime) or democratic erosion (the Duterte years). To take them at their word would be either sheer naïveté or extreme opportunism.
Understood rightly in that dimming light, the 2022 election is the most consequential vote since 1986. There are any number of ways to describe those potentially calamitous consequences—and some groups supporting Vice President Leni Robredo have already issued statements that warn about some of those potential calamities. Let me only point to those consequences that bear on our understanding of Philippine history and the Filipino’s sense of identity.
On May 5, 2020, the country’s largest TV network went off the air; the following July 10, the House of Representatives voted 70-11, at the committee level, to reject a new legislative franchise for ABS-CBN. President Rodrigo Duterte had imposed a death sentence on the network, and the 70 congressmen served as his willing executioners.
The shutdown and the franchise rejection were the worst attacks on press freedom since Ferdinand Marcos imposed martial rule in 1972, and it registered on the public. A Social Weather Stations survey taken in November 2020 found that 65% of voting-age Filipinos thought it was dangerous to write or publish anything critical of the Duterte administration, up sharply from 51% in July.
But the issue cannot be reduced to press freedom, as important as that is. In the election program I host, On the Campaign Trail, editor Jonathan de Santos, the chair of the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, emphasized that more than 4,000 workers were laid off as a result of the shutdown and congressional vote. UP professor Jean Encinas Franco also noted the collateral damage in the area where the network is headquartered, in terms of business losses for restaurants and other establishments. Any campaign to hold the 70 congressmen to account, Franco said, should highlight those who lost their jobs.
Ninety days out, Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is acting like the overwhelming favorite to win the presidential election: selecting his interviews, evading debates, avoiding conflict. That these play to his own weaknesses (he is not known as a diligent, policy-oriented confrontational debater) must come as both relief and vindication; he is campaigning for president exactly the way he wants to.
This is possible largely because he and his running mate Mayor Sara Duterte both enjoy a commanding lead in the surveys. If the results were otherwise, he would necessarily find himself accepting all sorts of interviews, showing up at debates, breaking his own vow of unity to face (and face down) rivals.
Will the surveys then be one of the deciding factors, or even the crucial decisive one, that will shape the 2022 vote? The answer must be no—because scientific surveys only reflect public opinion. As I have written before, the “great democratic paradox at the heart of the entire survey enterprise” is that scientific surveys accurately reflect public opinion because “they do not in fact influence public opinion.” To use Social Weather Stations terms, the few who are “bandwagonners” (voters who change their mind to join the bandwagon of the front runner) cancel out the few who are “underdoggers” (voters who change their mind to side with the underdog). Survey results reflect public opinion at a particular moment in time, and that moment is shaped not by surveys but by other factors. It might be useful to think of surveys not as the message but rather as the messenger.
In disclosing her vote on the Marcos disqualification case, did the feisty official do right? Yes. Did she do wrong? Also yes. Published in Rappler on January 31, 2022.
Commissioner Rowena Guanzon did the right thing last week when she disclosed her vote on the disqualification petitions against Ferdinand Marcos Jr., in a calculated attempt to put public pressure on Commissioner Aimee Ferolino to finally release the decision of the Commission on Elections’ First Division. Today, two days before she retires from the Comelec, she authorized the release of her separate opinion.
But the attempt is fraught with risk. It could further damage the reputation of the entire commission, so soon after what looked like an organized campaign to undermine its credibility through an alleged hacking (suspicious) and then an immediate chorus of complaint (even more suspicious). And it could turn the invincible self-righteousness that Guanzon has characteristically wrapped herself in into a symbol of, even a provocation for, partisanship. That would widen the political divide even more in an election season, with an election commissioner herself as the driving wedge.
His actual and perceived strengths have allowed Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to say he will skip the official debates. Wrong move. Published in Rappler on January 27, 2022.
Is the Marcos approach to debates—to avoid them, essentially—a “smart” strategy? It is certainly rational, in that it seeks to play to the actual and perceived strengths of Ferdinand Marcos Jr. as a presidential candidate. But is it guaranteed to be successful? Not at all. In fact, it has the potential to derail his candidacy.
Avoiding debates may seem like a winning strategy; in reality, it is high-risk and make-or-break.
Hidden highlights of the latest Pulse Asia poll include a couple of silver linings and a potentially ominous cloud for the opposition. Published in Rappler on January 18, 2022.
Much of the coverage and commentary on the results of the December 2021 Pulse Asia survey centered on the apparent consolidation of the presidential contest between former senator Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Vice President Leni Robredo, and on Marcos’ outsize lead.
I would like to focus on two possible sources of cautious optimism, and also one danger signal, for the opposition.
"exposing false appearances of his own society and pointing at the systematic abuse of power; giving expression to his people’s deepest sense of how they ought to live, using the common language which he raises to a new pitch of intensity and argumentative power; reiterating the regulative principles by which one might set things right; and insisting that there are other forms of falseness and other, equally legitimate, hopes and aspirations. Such a critic is bound but never wholly bound to the life he shares with others. He is never uncritical of those in power or of his allies whose similar complaints he often regards as wrongly directed or incompletely stated. He is at once inside and outside, a member apart, a critical patriot, civilly disobedient, committed to a democratic politics that is never democratic enough." - J. Peter Euben
![[Newsstand] Marcos vs Robredo one-on-one debate, ASAP](https://www.rappler.com/tachyon/2022/04/robredo-marcos-debate-april-26-2022.jpg)
![[ANALYSIS] Ping Lacson’s premature endgame](https://www.rappler.com/tachyon/2022/04/Ping-Lacson-Endgame.jpg)
![[Newsstand] Enough time for ‘Ro-mentum’](https://www.rappler.com/tachyon/2022/04/Ro-mentum-TL.jpg)
![[Newsstand] To win, Leni Robredo needs 22 million votes](https://www.rappler.com/tachyon/2022/03/tl-leni-votes.png)
![[Newsstand] Dynamic race, static survey?](https://www.rappler.com/tachyon/2022/03/bbm-leading-surveys.jpeg)
![[Newsstand] What we can expect from a Marcos Junior presidency](https://www.rappler.com/tachyon/2022/03/marcos-junior-presidency-march-2-2022-resized.jpeg)
![[Newsstand] Meet Leni’s most effective spokesperson](https://www.rappler.com/tachyon/2022/02/TL-Leni-spokesperson-February-23-2022.jpg)
![[OPINION] Mobilization IS the message](https://www.rappler.com/tachyon/2022/02/survey-crowds.jpeg)
![[OPINION] Where to fight the ‘ABS-CBN 70’? In Quezon City](https://www.rappler.com/tachyon/2022/02/where-to-fight-abs-cbn-70-qc-february-10-2022.jpeg)
![[Newsstand] The deciding factors in the 2022 elections](https://www.rappler.com/tachyon/2022/02/TL-Newstand-factors-2022-elections-February-8-2022.jpg)
John Nery | Newsstand 
You must be logged in to post a comment.