A dramatic reckoning with truth in the age of political revisionism
In the turbulent world of Philippine politics, where spin often overshadows substance, few legislative victories have sparked as much heated misinformation as the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act (RA 10931), commonly known as the Free College Law. Touted as one of the landmark policies for social mobility in the country, this law has now become the latest battlefield for political credit-grabbing—and the Duterte Diehard Supporters (DDS) are at it again.
Their goal? Rewriting history to cast former President Rodrigo Duterte as the mastermind behind the Free College Law. But truth, when unearthed and laid bare, tells a dramatically different story.
Let’s cut through the fog of propaganda and lay the facts on the table.
CLAIM 1: "Bam Aquino is not the only one who authored the bill—why is he getting all the credit?"
FACT-CHECK:
This statement is a classic case of half-truths twisted to mislead.
Yes, multiple senators co-authored the bill. That’s how legislation works—many can support and file similar proposals. But Senator Bam Aquino was not just a co-author. He was the principal sponsor and the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Education during the bill’s critical life stages. These positions are far from ceremonial.
Bam didn’t just sign his name on paper—he wrote, revised, defended, and fought tooth and nail for the bill through long committee hearings, Senate floor debates, and bicameral conferences. He answered questions, dismantled opposition, and built consensus. In legislative terms, he was the bill’s architect and general contractor.
Giving him credit isn’t about erasing others—it’s about recognizing who laid the bricks, who held the blueprint, and who saw it through.
CLAIM 2: "Duterte should be credited because he allocated the budget for the law."
FACT-CHECK:
This claim distorts the constitutional process for budgeting.
The President proposes, but it is Congress that disposes. Under the Philippine Constitution, the power of the purse lies with the Legislature, not the Executive. While the Duterte administration eventually released funds, this was after the law was passed and amid enormous public pressure.
Let’s also not forget: Budget Secretary Ben Diokno initially opposed the bill, raising concerns about its sustainability. Duterte's camp wasn't exactly cheering from the sidelines when the idea was taking shape.
Approving a budget for an enacted law is not a magnanimous gesture. It is a constitutional duty. So no, allocating the budget doesn’t make Duterte the hero of this story—it makes him a character who, thankfully, didn’t derail the plot.
CLAIM 3: "Why didn’t Bam Aquino pass this during PNoy’s time?"
FACT-CHECK:
Here’s a timeline that matters: Bam Aquino was elected in 2013. The law passed during the 17th Congress (2016–2019). During the Aquino administration, the focus was on targeted financial aid for poor students, such as the ESGPPA scholarship program.
Back then, the national budget and political appetite weren’t ready for a sweeping reform like universal free tuition. But once 2016 hit, and the political landscape shifted, Bam Aquino seized the momentum and rallied support across party lines.
This wasn’t about procrastination—it was about timing, strategy, and political reality.
CLAIM 4: "The law only became real because Duterte signed it."
FACT-CHECK:
This is one of the most misleading narratives floating around—and it’s legally flimsy, too.
Under Article VI, Section 27(1) of the Constitution, any bill passed by Congress automatically becomes law after 30 days if the President neither signs nor vetoes it. So yes, Duterte signed it—but had he done nothing, the bill would’ve lapsed into law anyway.
More importantly, the bill passed unanimously in the Senate and had broad public support. At that point, resisting it would’ve been political suicide. Duterte’s signature was not the act of a champion—it was a formality shaped by pressure.
CLAIM 5: "Duterte deserves credit for not vetoing it."
FACT-CHECK:
Should we really give out medals for not sabotaging good laws?
If this logic stands, then every president should be showered with credit for every law they didn’t veto. That’s absurd. Duterte faced massive public approval for the bill and internal pushback from his own Cabinet.
In the end, not vetoing the law wasn’t an act of leadership—it was a political calculation. Choosing not to obstruct progress isn’t the same as driving it.
BOTTOM LINE:
The truth isn’t ambiguous, and it shouldn’t be muddied by blind loyalty or post-facto credit theft.
The Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act (RA 10931) owes its existence to:
The vision and persistence of Senator Bam Aquino,
The collective will of Congress, and
The clamor of a public long denied access to affordable education.
Rodrigo Duterte did not conceptualize it. His administration was not its champion. He signed it only after it passed with resounding support. That doesn’t make him the father of the law—it makes him a reluctant witness to history.
In an era where propaganda masquerades as truth, facts still matter. And on this issue, the facts speak loudly:
The Free College Law was Congress-led, people-powered, and Bam Aquino-driven—not a gift from Duterte.
Let’s stop rewriting history to suit political agendas. The Filipino youth deserve the truth.
Ross is known as the Pambansang Blogger ng Pilipinas - An Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Professional by profession and a Social Media Evangelist by heart.
.jpg)
Post a Comment