Healing the Republic from the regions
There is a lingering political grudge in the Visayas and Mindanao that the rest of the country ignores at its peril. It does not speak in one voice. Cebuano pride is not the same as Davao defiance. Leyte’s memories are not the same as Zamboanga’s anxieties. Iloilo, Bacolod, Cagayan de Oro, General Santos, Davao, Tacloban, Cebu, and the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao each carry different histories, wounds, ambitions, and accents. But taken together, these regional feelings create a powerful logrolling force in national politics: a shared conviction that the country has long been governed from Manila, for Manila, and according to Manila’s imagination of what the Philippines should be.
This is the emotional soil from which Duterte politics grew. The southern grudge is not simply resentment. It is a memory of unequal attention. Roads came late. Investments came unevenly. National media looked South mostly during wars, kidnappings, disasters, elections, or scandals. National offices made decisions from the capital, often with little understanding of local texture.
The wound cuts even deeper. It is not only underdevelopment. It is land, migration, war, military rule, resource extraction, Moro self-determination, “lumad” displacement, and the feeling of being treated as a security problem rather than a full partner in nation-building. The wound often takes another form: cultural and linguistic condescension. The Bisaya voice is celebrated in song and comedy, but too often dismissed in power.
That is why coarse, rough, authentic-looking politicians can become so magnetic. To critics, former President Rodrigo Duterte’s vulgarity was proof of danger. To many supporters, it was proof that he was not pretending to be a Manila gentleman. His roughness became cultural revenge. His anger sounded like a region talking back. His insults against elites seemed to carry the insults long absorbed by those who felt ignored.
This is why evidence often fails to dislodge Duterte loyalty. The attachment is not only factual. It is emotional, historical, and defensive. When critics say Duterte violated rights, many supporters hear: “Here come the Manila elites again, judging us.” When critics say the Dutertes are also a dynasty, supporters answer silently: “At least they are our dynasty.” When critics say Davao is not a national model, supporters hear an attack on southern dignity.
This is the persecution gap. One side speaks the language of law, rights, institutions, and evidence. The other hears humiliation, class judgment, regional contempt, and elite hypocrisy. The conversation breaks down before it begins.
The whole country must understand that if regional angst is not addressed by justice and development, it will be captured by families, converted into political mythology, and sold back to voters as liberation. A real wound can be monopolized by a dynasty.
This is the danger: the South’s grievance is real, but Duterte-style politics is not the same as healing it. A dynasty from Davao is still a dynasty. Coarseness is not the same as authenticity. Anger is not the same as empowerment. Punishment is not the same as justice. Anti-Manila rhetoric is not the same as regional development. The challenge is to honor the wound without surrendering the country to those who exploit it.
So who can bridge the empathy and persecution gap? This needs to be projectized and institutionalized as a deliberate continuing effort. We should field a “One Republic, Many Centers: A National Listening Roadshow.” The core team can be: national rule-of-law anchors (Antonio Carpio, Francis Jardeleza); Visayas constitutional/development anchors (Hilario Davide Jr., Franklin Drilon); Mindanao peace and dignity anchors (Cardinal Orlando Quevedo, Jess Dureza, Amina Rasul-Bernardo, Irene Santiago); and peace-process institutional anchor (Miriam Coronel-Ferrer). This indicative mix says sovereignty, democracy, regional dignity, peace, and development belong together.
This spearhead needs broad support. (1) Local universities and scholars can systematically produce research, public forums, local data, and civic education that explain why resentment exists and offer genuine transformative pathways. (2) Churches, Muslim institutions, interfaith groups, and peace advocates can redouble and interlink efforts to translate pain into dialogue (3) Regional journalists can deliberately balance Manila as the default narrator of pride and poverty, dynasties and reformers, local corruption and national neglect, and real achievements and myths.
Many Filipinos are not angry at the Republic with hate but with impatience. They have waited too long to be treated as co-owners. Until we understand that, every election will be a carnival of insult, revenge, and wounded belonging. The southern grudge is not a regional problem. It is an unfinished national reckoning.
—————-
doyromero@gmail.com
******
Get real-time news updates: inqnews.net/inqviber
