Leadership matters but systems matter more

Debunking the Myth: "The Philippines Only Thrived Under Duterte" — and Why We Need Systemic Reform

A common myth keeps going around on the internet: that the Philippines was poor under Cory Aquino until Noynoy Aquino, and only under President Rodrigo Duterte did real change actually start. Its proponents point to gigantic allocations for infrastructure, free college tuition, and increased pensions as proof that "it was all possible—so why wasn't it done before?"

It sounds good at face value. But let's look at the historical realities, economic indicators, and structural framework to see what actually transpired—and why it's not so much about a single leader, but a deeper flawed system which keeps the Philippines in check irrespective of who is holding office.

Photo: LBB Online

1. The country was poor from Cory to Noynoy. – FALSE

Upon taking office in 1986, President Cory Aquino was left with a ruined economy from the Marcos regime—a debt of more than $26 billion, widespread crony capitalism, and debased democratic institutions. Her six-year term was focused on institutional reconstruction, ratifying the 1987 Constitution, reinstalling democracy but also installing restrictions still debated today.

Economic Growth:

• Fidel Ramos (1992–1998): Spurred reforms and deregulation; growth was averaged at 5%.
• Gloria Arroyo (2001–2010): Attained robust growth (4.5% average) despite worldwide crises.
• Noynoy Aquino (2010–2016): Provided 6.2% average GDP growth, investment-grade credit ratings, and enhanced global economic rankings.

FACT: Between 1986 and 2016, the Philippines was making steady gains. The notion that "nothing happened for 30 years" is contrary to facts.

2. There was no funding during PNoy's time. – MISLEADING

Noynoy Aquino's administration was known for fiscal discipline, aiming to reduce debt and corruption. Many of Duterte’s programs were made possible due to the healthy economy and stable reserves left by PNoy.

Major initiatives under PNoy:

• Sin Tax Reform (2012): Funded healthcare expansion
• K-12 Education Reform
• Infrastructure budget rose from 1.8% to 5.4% of GDP
• Social and education spending significantly increased

FACT: The Duterte administration built on these gains, not created them from scratch.

3. Duterte accomplished more than anyone else. – EXAGGERATED

Duterte did initiate important projects, such as Build, Build, Build, but most of these were continuations or renamed versions of initiatives initiated under past presidents:

• NAIA Expressway and MRT-7: Initiated under PNoy
• Clark Green City: Conceived under Arroyo
• Universal Health Care: Foundation laid by PNoy's PhilHealth reforms
• And while Duterte ramped up spending:
• The Philippine debt ballooned to over P13.7 trillion
• Only 12 of the 119 Build, Build, Build projects were finished by 2022
• Pharmally corruption scandal revealed lack of transparency

FACT: Mega budgets and boisterous policies do not always translate to mega impact.

4. "Everything was free under Duterte." – MISREPRESENTED

Most programs were not new:

• Free college tuition: Suggested long before Duterte; written by Bam Aquino
• Land distribution: Initiated with Cory Aquino's CARP in 1988
• Healthcare and veterans' pensions: Expanded but not created under Duterte

FACT: These weren’t Duterte’s sole achievements—they were part of a larger, decades-long effort by various administrations, lawmakers, and civil society.

5. LPs were just corrupt, and Duterte stopped them. – BASELESS AND DIVISIVE

Corruption has occurred under all administrations. Duterte’s term faced:

• Pharmally scandal (P10B in pandemic supplies)
• Intelligence funds with no audit
• Drug war abuses with minimal accountability

FACT: Good governance requires checks and balances, not blind allegiance to any one party or figure.

6. The Real Issue: A Flawed and Archaic System

While arguments storm about who "did more," the underlying problem is still left untouched: the 1987 Constitution, composed during an atmosphere of fear and change during the period after Martial Law, has become antiquated and structurally defective.

Primary Defects of the Present System:

• Excessive concentration of power in "Imperial Manila"
• Limitations on foreign direct investment (FDI) dissuade job creation
• Weakened political party system – personality over platforms
• Obstacles to regional progress and federalism
• Bureaucratic and slow legislation and justice system

Other ASEAN Countries Reformed:

• Singapore reformed early and is now the model of governance
• Malaysia and Thailand reformed constitutions for better governance
• Vietnam, being communist, opened up its economy and emerged as one of Asia's fastest-growing markets

The Philippines, on the other hand, is mired with a hyper-presidential, unitary system which renders true progress in slow, uneven, and unsustainable terms.

7. We Need Constitutional Reform—Not Just a New President

The fact is, even if you choose the most effective leader, if the system is flawed, improvement will always be constrained.

What we need:

• Transition to federalism or parliamentary system for local empowerment
• Economic Charter Change to entice more investments and employment
• Strengthening of political parties and anti-dynasty measures
• Decentralization of government services and funds

FACT: The Constitution should empower the country, not chain it.

Conclusion: Leadership Matters—But Systems Matter More

Rodrigo Duterte also had his part to play, but it's not true that he single-handedly changed the nation or that nobody contributed. Each administration has built on the previous one. Genuine change will not come from allegiance to any personality—it will come from structural change that will bring sustainable, inclusive growth for all Filipinos.

Until we update the old 1987 Constitution, we will just keep on electing leaders with grand ideas only to see them trapped in a slow, imperfect system.

Let's stop squabbling about personalities. Let's begin repairing the system.

Sources:

• World Bank Philippines Data: https://data.worldbank.org/country/philippines
• Rappler Fact-Check: https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/fact-check
• Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA): https://psa.gov.ph
• NEDA Public Policy Briefs
• Senate and House Legislative Archives
• Asian Development Bank Reports
• "Why Charter Change Is Essential" – UP School of Economics Discussion Paper
• Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS)

Is heavy traffic a sign of progress?

Is Heavy Traffic in the Philippines a Sign of Progress?

Introduction

The Philippines, and specifically Metro Manila, is infamous for heavy traffic. Many say this congestion is a mark of economic progress: it means there are more cars in circulation, more people living in urban centers. But is it truly a mark of progress or just an indicator of inefficiency that stands as an impediment to sustainable growth? Let's talk about it on this blog and explore whether heavy traffic is a sign of advancement or the symptom of something else deeper. 

On the surface, heavy traffic may be perceived as a symbol of progress. Metro Manila, after all, is an attractive place for businesses, creating jobs and increasing consumer spending. Increasing vehicle sales, infrastructure development, and busy streets are usually considered indicators of economic vitality. 

However, a closer examination reveals a more complex picture. Traffic congestion can also reflect poor urban planning, insufficient public transportation, and unregulated growth. It’s not just about the number of cars on the road; it’s about how cities accommodate their increasing populations.

A progressive society should aim for mobility and efficiency. Traffic jams, on the other hand, cost the economy billions in lost productivity, increase fuel consumption, and degrade air quality. Can we really call this heavy traffic a sign of progress?

Photo: Ben Briones

Debunking or refuting this claim

It is way too simplistic to argue that heavy traffic equates to progress. True progress should relate to the quality of life rather than economic activity. Singapore and Tokyo are examples of cities where urbanization doesn't necessarily go with crippling traffic. Instead, these cities have focused on efficient public transportation systems, smart traffic management, and policies that put people before vehicles.

In contrast, Metro Manila is plagued by overdependence on private cars, inadequate public transport, and urban sprawl. Even as GDP grows, these issues persist, so it is more a product of mismanagement rather than success.

Resources

For further reading, I suggest checking out:

1. Asian Development Bank Reports – Information on infrastructure and urbanization in Southeast Asia.
2. World Bank Urban Development Series -Case studies on sustainable city planning.
3. Move As One Coalition -A local action coalition that calls for change and reform in public transport, particularly in the Philippines.

Takeaways

Traffic congestion is not one of the natural indicators of prosperity but rather a messy one associated with urban development and governance.

Good and clean urban planning, a functioning public transport system, and efficient traffic management define good progress.

The Philippines, in comparison to better-functioning cities reflects the difference between prosperity and quality of life.

Conclusion

While heavy traffic in the Philippines may indicate economic activities, it ultimately points towards inefficiencies in urban planning and transportation systems. Progress has to be measured by how good a city is at taking care of its people such that growth benefits everyone. As Filipinos, we must fight for smarter solutions that are sustainable and that represent real progress, not just the illusion of progress.

Let's work to make these congested roads avenues of real development.

Author's Note:

Have you been stuck in hours of a traffic jam in Metro Manila? Very frustrating, right? Not one to accept as unavoidable, let's instead explore what we can do about changing this narrative. We need to keep the discussion flowing. Let's start chatting in the comments section.

The fight for your digital connection

PLDT vs. the Konektadong Pinoy Act: Whose Interest Really Comes First?

PLDT recently made headlines after announcing that it would sue if the Konektadong Pinoy Act becomes law. The company argues that the bill’s open-access provisions could threaten network security and create unfair competition.

Google Photo

On paper, the Konektadong Pinoy Act seeks to liberalize the data transmission market to more operators, with the promise of providing cheaper, faster, and more accessible internet for every Filipino. For a nation that perennially finds itself among the list of countries with the slowest and most pricey internet in Southeast Asia, this sounds like a step in the right direction.

The Problem with PLDT's Stance

Rather than endorsing the bill's intentions to improve internet access and pricing, PLDT seems more interested in safeguarding its own market stronghold. For decades, the Philippine internet market has been dominated by a handful of large players, and the absence of real competition has maintained prices high while speeds fall far behind international standards.

With a proposal to open up the industry to greater competition now on the table, PLDT is resisting—naming threats that, as theoretical, are legitimate but could just as easily be addressed with proper safeguards. The timing and tenor of their resistance beg an important question: Do they care about national security, or do they fear losing domination of the market?

The Price of Monopoly to the Filipino People

Filipinos have long suffered:

• Sluggish internet speeds that impede productivity, learning, and entertainment.
• Exorbitant monthly charges relative to other regional countries.
• Insufficient selection when it comes to carriers.

These problems are not mere aggravations—each one directly affects the nation's economic development, competitiveness, and capacity to be a part of a digital society.

By maintaining the market closed to greater competition, dominant carriers such as PLDT have had little reason to focus on being competitive or reducing prices.

Why PLDT Must Be the Solution, Not the Problem

If PLDT really cares about its customers, it ought to be at the forefront of figuring out how to make open-access happen, not sending lawyers at the first hint of progress. This could involve:

• Working with policymakers to get security measures absolutely watertight.
• Working with new entrants to build out the infrastructure, not shutting them out.
• Competing on improved service and innovation, not market exclusivity.

After all, a safe, affordable, and speedy internet is in the best interest of the whole country—including PLDT subscribers.

The Bigger Picture

The Konektadong Pinoy Act is more than faster home Wi-Fi; it's about digital empowerment—empowering students, entrepreneurs, remote workers, and underserved communities to be full participants in the new economy.

If we continue to let monopolistic behavior call the shots on the future of our internet, we will keep lagging behind our Southeast Asian neighbors who have championed openness, competition, and innovation.

Bottom line: It's time to make connectivity for the people a priority over the interests of the few. The Konektadong Pinoy Act is given a fair shake—with out choking it with corporate fear of competition.

Yes to constitutional reform

Why an awful system will always defeat a good individual: Understanding the power of structures over personal effort. 

Well, in that utopian world, all one needs is hard work and talent with ethics to make the cut; one should rise or fall according to the worth of one's contributions and commitment. In real life, though, structures we work within—be that at work, in society, or in any organized setup—have the power to decide who shall come out top. Bad system, with flaws in its structure and biased, will always overpower the best and most determined of humans. And here's why:

Google Photo

1. Systems Define the Rules, Resources, and Boundaries

At its core, a system is a network of interconnected pieces that define how things work in a given environment. Policies, hierarchies, workflows, resources, and cultural norms all serve as those pieces. Each determines who receives how much of what opportunities are available; each decides who makes which decisions and at what times; and each outlines who benefits most from those decisions.

No person—howevertalented or well-intentioned—must play by these rules. A bad system warps these factors in a direction that inhibits real progress, favors the few, or is simply ineffective. Consider an organization that promotes you based on whom you know rather than how well you do the job. Even when a diligent and talented employee exists in such an environment, his potential upward movement is blocked by the system, which prefers connections over competence.

2. The Inertia of a Bad System

Systems have inertia, which refers to a resistance to change born of entrenched processes, vested interests, and cultural norms. Thus, even for the best of people who are proactive, the challenges they face when trying to change or work against the system are insurmountable.

This concept manifests in quite a few daily life examples. In industries in which bureaucratic red tape hinders innovation, even the brilliance of the finest experts can get stuck in an endless wheel of authorization processes and outdated procedures. Time rolls by, and the best either give up or have endured until they conclude that no matter their efforts, it is impossible to overcome the weight of inertia of the system itself.

3. Changing Rules and Moving Goalposts

You decide to run a race, determined to win it. You train hard, perfect your technique, and visualize winning by crossing the finish line. But halfway in your actual run, new rules are introduced: you are forced to take the longer route while everyone else is allowed on the shortcut, then finish line is changed so that it's farther off, and requirements to win are made to favor a few. Win becomes impossible, no matter how capable you are, in this scenario.

This analogy can apply anywhere systems are rigged or biased. Be it in politics, corporate setups, or social strata, people who try to operate within a system where the rules are constantly changed or skewed end up badly. Their works may seem exemplary, but the structure is designed so only a few make it to the top.

4. Why Talented and Ethical People Fail

Ethics and strong principles are great qualities of a person. However, in a bad system, they work against the one human being like obstacles rather than assets. It is because in a flawed system, some wrong practices or corrupt dynamics tend to dominate. Good people who may have chosen to maintain ethics and fairness may refuse to play the dirty game that others-a group of people with fewer scruples-will enter. The end result is having the good people sit on the bench or be penalized for being too good.

Some examples of this struggle are whistleblowers in many organizations and societal systems. They decide to act for what they believe is the right thing to do to combat corruption or misconduct. But without proper protections and a system that generally supports transparency, such whistleblowers often suffer retaliation, the loss of their job, or the isolation of being a whistleblower. The very framework they trusted to uphold justice turns against them, showing even the bravest acts can be undermined by a system designed to preserve the status quo.

5. Systemic Bias and Inequality

An unequal, biased system will always be partial to certain groups rather than others, even if the individual may deserve it. Institutionalized discrimination, be it on grounds of gender, race, income levels, or any other characteristic, structures opportunities and resources in an uneven manner.

For instance, take the corporate world wherein unconscious bias directs who should be hired, who promoted, and whose ideas matter. An individual from a background of low representation may bring innovative ideas and offer exemplary performance, but a system infested with bias will undervalue those contributions, make room for those people who fit that "preferred" profile.

Even in an education system, structural inequalities play a huge part. Well-educated children with great academic achievement and good career prospects emerge from well-endowed schools in comparison to capable peers who went through poorly funded schools. However talented and ambitious the child may be, a system, which favors one group over the other, only allows a chosen few to be able to succeed.

6. Resisting the Constrictions of a Poor System

However, what is clear is that a bad system can overpower individual effort; it never suggests that the situation cannot be changed. The way forward to reform lies in awareness and collective action:

Collective Advocacy: In most cases, change requires a group of people who come together and fight against and shape the system. Whether it's a demand for good working practices by workers, demands for policy changes by citizens, or an increase in education equity by students, collective voices have power than any individual voice.

Leadership and Responsibility: Change in the system occurs when leaders demonstrate a sincere intention to change. Leading with integrity, to be more effective and better, is what the leaders have to do. Systems can be changed even by the most Herculean ones by a leader who looks for transparency, justice, and flexibility.

Building Alternative Structures. Sometimes, the only way to fight a bad system is to build a better one. For example, this can involve building startups that challenge the outdated corporate practices; community cooperatives working for equal access to resources; or organizations with emphasis on diversity and inclusion.

7. Conclusion: The Power of Change and Persistence

Indeed, bad system overthrows a good man in the short run. Systems set the rules, distributing resources. For this reason, systems set the environment that people work within. However, history teaches that resolute effort, collective action, and the boldness to challenge obtuse structures can result in meaningful change.

It is through understanding what bad systems do not allow that expectations are managed and efforts directed in the right way. It teaches individual effort but changing the rules of the game very often calls for a concerted and long-term strategy. Then, for the most talented and ethical persons, aligning with other people who share their values and working together then represents the way forward past the inertia of a flawed system.

Happy karga fellow actors!

What I Learned from the Chubbuck Technique: Lessons I'll Carry Forever

I started this acting workshop on May 3rd of this year, and as I finish up my last session of the Chubbuck Technique acting workshop on August 2nd, 2025, I find myself thinking about how life-changing the last 12 sessions have been. This is not merely an acting class—it's an exploration of the reality of the human condition, utilizing our own suffering, needs, and aspirations to craft real performances.

The 12 Tools of Acting book penned by Ivana Chubbuck is the very bible of this acting technique, which is The Power of the Actor. 

Screengrab from Direk Rahyan Carlos

These are my greatest learnings from this experience from film and TV director Rahyan Carlos, the only authorized mentor for this technique, as follows:

1. Your Pain is Power

The Chubbuck Technique instructed me to leave running from my past hurts behind. Instead, I learned to harness them into my character's goals. Through utilizing actual experiences as emotional impetus, each line and every decision feels real and authentic.

2. Fight to Win Every Scene

Acting isn't just "feeling" the feeling—it's actually going for what you're after. Every scene is a fight, and every character is fighting with everything they've got. This attitude shifted how I work in every role.

3. Substitution Creates Truth

One of the strongest techniques I learned was substitution or the "karga"—swapping the people or situations in the script for those from my life. This makes every performance highly personal and unique.

4. Inner Life Is More Important than Words

It's not what you say—it's what happens beneath the surface. The Chubbuck Technique instructed me on how to create a rich inner life for my characters, so even when they don't speak, you feel what I feel.

5. Vulnerability is Strength

Perhaps the biggest lesson I’m taking with me is that vulnerability is not weakness—it’s where true connection begins. When I allow myself to be fully seen, both as an actor and as a human being, that’s when my work resonates most.

Moving Forward

This workshop didn't only improve me as an actor; it improved me as a person. It taught me empathy, discipline, and the bravery to speak truth in my work. I look forward to applying everything I've learned to upcoming roles, auditions, and creative endeavors. Also to move to the next step of learning, the advanced class of the Chubbuck Technique. Whatever comes my way, I will be learning this technique.

Thank you to everyone who's supported me on this journey. This is just the beginning, and I look forward to showing you what's coming next.

Lights on. Let's tell more stories together.