What lies behind CA rejection of Taguiwalo?

For over a year, Judy M. Taguiwalo performed her mandated duties as Department of Social Welfare and Development Secretary with unquestioned integrity and competence. And she did so with the compassion and dedication – unfortunately rare in our high-profile public servants – to uplift, over the long haul, the lives of the poor and to quickly respond to the needs of those adversely affected by natural calamities and man-made disasters. 

On a number of occasions, President Duterte had publicly acknowledged Judy’s integrity and competence – and yes, her grit in standing fast on her principles.     

Yet, after deferring action on her interim appointment for several months, a majority of 13 (out of 24 members) of the Commission on Appointments last Wednesday rejected her as DSWD head. They did so through secret balloting in executive session without explaining why. 

Astounding was the smug reply of Rep. Joel Mayo Almario, head of the CA committee on labor and social welfare which recommended the rejection, when journalists, invoking transparency and accountability, prodded him for an explanation. He said: “We don’t have to be accountable to the public on our decision.”  

And this was how he explained the executive session secret balloting: “It’s because when we come to voting, there are always pressures coming from all sides. And we don’t want any member to vote against his conscience. We don’t want any member to vote (yes or no) because he was told to.”

The big question is: Why hadn’t Duterte said a word in Judy’s behalf before the Commission on Appointments sat in judgment of her?  It wasn’t much consolation, and only after the CA rejection, that presidential spokesperson Ernesto Abella hailed Judy for having served the government “with passion, profession and integrity” and that “she made an impact on the lives of many Filipinos.”

 In a public statement, Judy attributed the CA rejection to her having opposed the congressmen’s insistence on accessing pork barrel funds from the DSWD (she invoked the Supreme Court 2013 ruling declaring the pork barrel as unconstitutional) and her firm stand against the administration’s tax reform package (which seeks to impose levies she deemed a heavy burden for the poor).  She also cited as possible reason her identification with the Left. (She was nominated by the National Democratic Front of the Philippines, along with two others in the Cabinet: Agrarian Reform Secretary Rafael Mariano and Liza Maza, National Anti-Poverty Commission lead convenor).

 These three factors must have been weighty considerations indeed during the CA’s deliberations and voting.

But recent events indicate that the overarching factor that pushed her out of the Cabinet – and probably, the same might happen to DAR Secretary Mariano, who will face the CA on August 30 – is President Duterte’s shift in political stance. Or, more aptly put, his unravelling from a self-proclaimed “socialist” who offered to work with the Left to institute deep-going changes in government and society to what he inherently is:  a politician whose familiar tools of the trade are horse-trading and dispensing patronage in order to strengthen his hold on power.  This would explain why he allowed the congressmen, pork-barrel greedy, to vengefully hit back at Judy, not considering the whirlwind of justifiable public protests this has spurred.

Last week’s column piece dwelt on the dire consequences of Duterte’s militaristic-authoritarian drift, capped by his repeated declarations that he would no longer talk peace with the Left and would wage “all-out war” against the New People’s Army after finishing the extremist Maute group.  That has led to a second exchange of vitriolic words between him and his former professor Jose Ma. Sison, NDFP chief political consultant (the first was in February, after Duterte first cancelled the GRP-NDFP peace talks).

Reacting to the CA decision, Sison squarely laid the blame on the Duterte administration, which he said was “becoming more and more reactionary and servile to antinational and antidemocratic interests.” Its actions against those it deemed as being with the Left, he added, were “in line with the all-out-war policy.”

 Let me end this piece with the interesting insights on Judy’s qualifications from Senate President pro-tempore Ralph Recto, who endorsed her nomination to the DSWD. (Seven other senators also endorsed her.) He read his speech at the Senate session after the CA voting.

Running through Judy’s curriculum vitae – including her having been a militant student activist, joining the underground resistance to the Marcos dictatorship, and three years as political prisoner before her long stint as UP professor in social work and community development, and faculty regent as well – Recto commented: “We can never ask for a package as complete as her.  She has been serving DSWD’s clientele long before Digong [referring to Duterte] thought of running for mayor.”

 Defending her political record, Recto boldly affirmed:

“Political imprisonment is no bar to public office and neither is the taking up of arms when conditions warrant. On the contrary, these are experiences we should look for in scouting for talent because they are the toughest ‘stress test’ one can endure. I don’t have to remind you that in our pantheon of heroes, those who were jailed for their beliefs occupy an honored place…”

“If she is an ideologue, then the ideology she subscribes to is the same one we believe in, and that ideology is to serve the people. I am seconding her confirmation because she brings a fresh perspective in the DSWD – and that is to treat not poverty’s symptoms but its roots, for the poor need more than relief, but a release from the social shackles that prevent them from bettering their lives.”

* * *

Email: [email protected]