Smoking Gun: Philippine Officials Caught Endorsing Tobacco Industry in Controversial Event!

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

Worse than the hypocrisy of the tobacco industry (donating mobile clinics while causing deaths and diseases) is the lack of integrity of the Secretary of Health attending this event and posing happily for a group photo, trading public health principles and ethics for political convenience, violating CSC-DOH JMC 2010-01. The Philippines, under this government, does NOT deserve to lead the World Health Assembly. 

​High-ranking Philippine government officials, including Health Secretary Teodoro Herbosa, Social Welfare Secretary Rex Gatchalian, and First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, were photographed alongside representatives from Philip Morris Fortune Tobacco Corp (PMFTC) during the donation of mobile clinics for the "Lab-for-All" caravan. This public display has drawn sharp criticism from health advocacy groups, who argue that such actions contradict the nation's public health objectives and violate established ethical guidelines.​

A Disconcerting Alliance

The crux of the outrage stems from the perceived endorsement of the tobacco industry by key public figures. The Philippines, as a signatory to the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), is obligated to implement stringent measures against tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship. Health advocacy groups, such as the Parents Against Vape (PAV), have expressed profound concern over this apparent public endorsement, highlighting the serious ethical, legal, and health-related issues it presents. They argue that accepting donations from a tobacco company contradicts the intent of Republic Act No. 9211, designed to regulate tobacco advertising and protect public health. ​

Legal and Ethical Ramifications

The controversy is further compounded by the Department of Justice's (DOJ) opinion allowing the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) to accept donations from the tobacco industry. This opinion challenges the Joint Memorandum Circular 2010-01 (JMC) issued by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and the Department of Health (DOH), which explicitly prohibits government officials from accepting such donations. Critics argue that this narrow interpretation undermines both national regulations and international commitments, compromising public trust and the integrity of health policies. ​

A Pattern of Industry Influence

This incident is not isolated. The Philippine delegation's participation in international health forums has previously been marred by allegations of siding with tobacco industry interests. Notably, during the 10th Conference of the Parties (COP10) to the WHO FCTC, the delegation received the "Dirty Ashtray" award for promoting viewpoints favoring the tobacco industry, raising concerns about the country's commitment to global tobacco control efforts. ​

Public Health at a Crossroads

The involvement of top officials in events sponsored by the tobacco industry sends a conflicting message to the public. While the government implements policies to discourage tobacco use and promote health, such endorsements can be perceived as tacit approval of an industry responsible for significant health burdens. The Philippine Smoke-Free Movement (PSFM) emphasized the urgency of addressing youth tobacco use, noting that products marketed as "smoke-free" are not safe and may appeal to younger generations. ​

A Call for Integrity and Accountability

Health advocacy groups are calling for a thorough investigation into these actions and urging public officials to reassess their positions to restore public trust. They stress the importance of adhering to ethical standards and regulations designed to protect public health from the vested interests of the tobacco industry. The recent events highlight the need for vigilance to ensure that public health policies remain free from undue influence and prioritize the well-being of the population.​

In conclusion, the recent engagement of Philippine officials with the tobacco industry underscores a critical juncture in the nation's public health trajectory. Balancing political relationships with unwavering commitment to health principles is imperative to safeguard the integrity of public health initiatives and protect future generations from the harms of tobacco.​

The Truth Behind Leadership: Beyond Rhetoric and Political Mythmaking

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

WHAT A DIFFERENCE AN ADMINISTRATION MAKES

Duterte: Loved by Many, Hated by Many

Former President Rodrigo Duterte remains one of the most polarizing figures in Philippine history. He is deeply loved by most Filipinos, yet hated by many. Why? Because he is uncouth—a leader who speaks in ways that defy traditional decorum.

He swears. He curses. He uses language that refined leaders wouldn’t dare utter. Most controversially, he once blasphemed God by calling Him “stupid”—a statement taken out of context but offensive nonetheless. Perhaps, after all that has happened to him, he has been chastened by fate. Maybe, as he nears the twilight of his life, he reflects on his words and regrets them. But does that define his presidency?

Words vs. Results

Duterte’s politically incorrect speech and actions never stopped him from being one of the most beloved Philippine presidents. Do Filipinos approve of his crass behavior? Most likely not. But they approve of the results of his leadership.

 • He made the streets safer. The war on drugs may have been controversial, but no one can deny that crime rates dropped significantly under his watch.

 • He presided over the Golden Age of Infrastructure. The Build, Build, Build program transformed the country with new highways, airports, bridges, and public transportation projects.

 • He punished those who abused power. He took down high-ranking officials involved in corruption, regardless of political affiliation.

 • He stood up to the oligarchs. He refused to be controlled by the country’s economic elites. A prime example? Lucio Tan once refused to pay ₱7 billion in unpaid airport usage fees—but after Duterte warned him, he paid immediately.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Duterte’s words were often harsh and unrefined, but his actions were decisive and effective. In the end, what matters more? Pleasant words or real change?

The Marcos Contrast: Smooth Talk, Disastrous Leadership

The Marcos Jr. administration is the opposite. He speaks in diplomatic and polished language, projecting the image of a refined and well-mannered leader. But what has he actually done?

 • Under his leadership, the Philippines is worse off than ever—rising debt, economic mismanagement, and an energy crisis loom over the nation.

 • Corruption scandals plague his administration, with reports of government funds being mishandled or misallocated.

 • He has no clear vision or direction for the country. Policies are vague, and the government seems more focused on damage control than actual governance.

It is no surprise that Marcos Jr. is now considered one of the most corrupt and inept presidents in Philippine history.

The Ultimate Irony

Duterte is criticized for his crude words, yet delivered results. Marcos sounds diplomatic, yet presides over a failing government. In the end, who truly serves the people?

The discourse surrounding former President Rodrigo Duterte and President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. has been framed in a way that oversimplifies governance into a false dichotomy—words versus actions, charisma versus results, and diplomacy versus crudeness. However, to claim that Duterte was a results-driven leader while Marcos is nothing but an eloquent figurehead ignores the deeper realities of governance, accountability, and the long-term consequences of their respective administrations.

Duterte: A Presidency of Fear, Not Results

While Duterte’s supporters credit him with achievements, a closer examination reveals a presidency built more on intimidation and propaganda than on sustainable progress.

The War on Drugs: A Humanitarian Crisis Masquerading as Crime Control

Duterte’s war on drugs did not make the Philippines safer—it only created a climate of fear, extrajudicial killings, and human rights violations that tarnished the country’s global reputation. While his supporters claim crime rates dropped, this was largely due to the reclassification of crimes, rather than an actual decrease in criminal activity. The reality:

Over 27,000 extrajudicial killings (as estimated by human rights groups), many of them innocent civilians, including children.

The root causes of drug addiction—poverty, unemployment, and lack of mental health support—were never addressed. Instead, the government focused on punitive measures that disproportionately targeted the poor while major drug lords remained untouched.

In contrast, nations that have effectively tackled drug addiction—such as Portugal—did so through rehabilitation and economic development, not through violence.

Build, Build, Build: A Borrowed Legacy

The Duterte administration frequently touted its Build, Build, Build program as a golden age of infrastructure. However, many of its flagship projects:

Were either initiated by previous administrations (e.g., LRT-2 extension, MRT-7, NAIA Expressway, Skyway Stage 3).

Were largely funded through massive foreign loans, particularly from China, which came with questionable terms.

Had poor transparency in awarding contracts, raising concerns about corruption.

While infrastructure is a necessity, it must be done efficiently, transparently, and without burdening future generations with unsustainable debt.

Fighting Corruption? A Political Smokescreen

Duterte’s claim of battling corruption falls flat when one examines the protection he afforded to his allies:

DOH’s multibillion-peso Pharmally scandal—a case of overpriced pandemic supplies involving individuals linked to Duterte’s circle.

Bong Go’s unchecked influence in awarding government contracts.

The PNP and AFP’s militarization of various agencies, leading to unchecked abuses of power.

While he publicly condemned corruption, he failed to implement systematic reforms to curb it. Instead, he simply replaced one set of political elites with his own.

Standing Up to Oligarchs? Or Just Replacing Them?

Duterte’s supporters argue that he stood up to oligarchs. Yet, his actions suggest he merely favored a different set of business interests:

He attacked ABS-CBN, leading to its closure—not because of legal violations, but because of personal vendettas.

He favored Chinese businesses over Filipino enterprises, allowing Chinese firms access to strategic sectors like telecommunications and energy.

He failed to break monopolies, with electricity prices and internet services remaining among the most expensive in Asia.

Marcos Jr.: A Work in Progress, Not a Failure

While the Marcos Jr. administration faces challenges, dismissing it as the "worst in history" ignores crucial facts.

Economic Recovery Post-Pandemic

Unlike Duterte, who presided over an economic downturn exacerbated by excessive lockdowns, Marcos Jr. inherited a difficult post-pandemic economy. Despite this, the country has:

Maintained stable GDP growth compared to regional neighbors.

Continued infrastructure expansion through PPP (Public-Private Partnership) projects.

Focused on agricultural reform, increasing rice production to reduce dependence on imports.

Debt and Spending: A Reality Check

Critics highlight the growing national debt, but fail to acknowledge that:

The debt crisis was worsened by Duterte’s excessive foreign borrowing—Marcos Jr. is managing its repayment, not creating it.

The global economic landscape, including inflation and supply chain disruptions, affects all nations, not just the Philippines.

Governance and Diplomacy: A Return to Stability

While Duterte isolated the Philippines internationally with his erratic foreign policies, Marcos Jr. has:

Rebuilt stronger ties with allies like the U.S., Japan, and the EU, securing investments and defense cooperation.

Mended strained relations with business sectors, ensuring investor confidence.

Maintained a more predictable governance style, reassuring both local and foreign stakeholders.

The Ultimate Question: Who Truly Served the People?

The contrast between Duterte and Marcos Jr. is not about crassness versus refinement, but about governance rooted in long-term vision versus leadership built on fear and spectacle.

Duterte left the country with a weakened democratic institution, a damaged international reputation, and an unsustainable debt burden.

Marcos Jr., despite his flaws, has at least attempted to stabilize the nation post-pandemic and restore credibility in governance.

Leadership is not about words alone, nor is it about showmanship. True governance is measured by its ability to uplift lives—not by instilling fear, but by fostering hope and sustainable development.

The True Measure of Patriotism: A Nation, Not a Man

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

MY TWO CENTS — The Duterte camp has adopted the slogan “I am not a Filipino for nothing” as a rallying cry, implying that supporting Duterte is an act of patriotism. 

But if this phrase is meant to stand for love of country, for defending the nation’s dignity, then it raises a glaring question: Where was this slogan when China was encroaching on our waters during Duterte’s presidency?

For six years, Duterte took a submissive stance toward China, downplaying its illegal occupation of the West Philippine Sea. 

He dismissed the 2016 arbitral ruling in favor of the Philippines as just a mere “piece of paper” and even joked about turning the country into a province of China. 

His government failed to stop Chinese ships from harassing Filipino fishermen, ignored reports of Chinese military installations in our territory, and even allowed questionable deals like the entry of Chinese-backed firms into our telecommunications and power sectors. 

In those moments of national humiliation, when China was violating our sovereignty, why didn’t we hear “I am not a Filipino for nothing” from Duterte and his supporters?

Instead, Duterte mocked and threatened those who dared to stand up for our territorial rights. 

He scoffed at the idea of asserting our sovereignty, saying he didn’t want to go to war – as if war was the only option. 

He branded critics as troublemakers while choosing appeasement over defense. 

He even silenced his own military officials who wanted a firmer stance against China’s incursions. 

If being Filipino means fighting for our country, then why did Duterte’s administration choose submission over resistance?

Now, as the Duterte camp faces legal and political challenges – particularly the ICC investigation into the drug war – they conveniently invoke patriotism. 

“I am not a Filipino for nothing” is now used to paint Duterte as a victim, as if defending him is the ultimate test of national pride. 

But real patriotism isn’t about protecting one man’s legacy; it’s about protecting the nation, its people and its sovereignty. 

A leader who refused to stand up to foreign aggression but now demands undying loyalty from his countrymen has no right to claim the mantle of nationalism.

Filipinos are not Filipinos for nothing – but that should mean standing up for the country, not for a politician who failed to do so when it mattered most.

The Duterte camp’s latest rallying cry—"I am not a Filipino for nothing"—seeks to ignite loyalty among their followers. It presents a compelling yet ironic notion: that supporting Duterte is synonymous with patriotism. But if this phrase is truly about love for country, about defending the dignity of the Filipino people, then we must ask—where was this fervor when China was trampling on our sovereignty during Duterte’s presidency?

For six years, the Duterte administration adopted a submissive stance toward China, repeatedly downplaying its illegal incursions into the West Philippine Sea. When the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled in favor of the Philippines in 2016, upholding our sovereign rights over the contested waters, Duterte shrugged it off as just a “piece of paper.” Instead of celebrating this hard-earned legal victory, he chose to appease China, joking that he might as well turn the country into one of its provinces.

In those critical moments, when Filipino fishermen were being harassed by Chinese ships, when Chinese military installations were rising in our own territory, when our national dignity was being blatantly disregarded—why didn’t Duterte’s supporters chant “I am not a Filipino for nothing”?

Submission Over Sovereignty

Rather than defending the country’s rights, Duterte mocked and threatened those who dared to speak up. He brushed aside calls to assert our sovereignty, insisting that any firm stance against China would lead to war—a false and cowardly narrative designed to justify inaction. As if war was the only option.

His administration turned a blind eye to China’s growing influence over our economy, allowing questionable deals that gave Chinese-backed firms access to critical sectors like telecommunications and power. He silenced military officials who advocated for stronger resistance against China’s creeping occupation of our waters. He painted critics as agitators, troublemakers, and warmongers—all to justify his own weakness.

So, we ask again: What does it truly mean to be a Filipino? If patriotism is about fighting for our country, then why did Duterte’s administration choose submission over resistance?

The Convenient Use of Patriotism

Now, facing legal and political challenges, including the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) investigation into his bloody drug war, Duterte suddenly wraps himself in the flag.

"I am not a Filipino for nothing" is now being used to cast him as a victim, as if standing by Duterte is the ultimate measure of national pride. His supporters claim that defending him against international scrutiny is an act of patriotism, that any attack on him is an attack on the country. But real patriotism is not about protecting one man’s legacy.

A leader who refused to stand up to foreign aggression yet now demands undying loyalty has no right to claim the mantle of nationalism.

Filipinos are not Filipinos for nothing—but that must mean standing up for our country, our people, and our sovereignty. Not for a politician who failed to do so when it mattered most.