FACT-CHECK: Debunking the DDS Propaganda on the Free College Law (RA 10931)

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

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.

“Frontliners of Democracy”: DepEd Honors Teachers as Silent Heroes of the 2025 Elections

Wazzup Pilipinas?!

As the final ballots were cast and the last polling centers closed their doors, a different kind of victory unfolded—one not marked by confetti or cheers, but by the silent resolve of over 660,000 public school teachers and personnel who stood as guardians of democracy. The Department of Education (DepEd) issued a heartfelt salute to these modern-day heroes who braved long hours, frayed nerves, and logistical chaos to ensure a peaceful and orderly 2025 National and Local Elections (NLE).

From the bustling cities of the National Capital Region to the remote and oft-overlooked corners of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM), the nation’s educators stepped far beyond the chalkboard, transforming into poll workers, precinct supervisors, troubleshooters, and peacekeepers.

“Salamat po sa lahat ng guro, poll workers, at school staff na tumulong at nagbantay sa halalan. Mula simula hanggang matapos, and’yan kayo—hindi bumitaw,” Education Secretary Sonny Angara said in a stirring tribute.

“Saludo po kami. Dahil sa inyo, naging maayos at safe ang proseso. Kayo ang tunay na ka-team sa Bagong Pilipinas—laging handa, laging para sa bayan.”

The Machinery Behind the Mission

Coordinating such an immense operation was no easy feat. DepEd’s Election Task Force (ETF) command center in Makati City worked tirelessly around the clock from May 11 to 13, serving as a critical hub for real-time updates, emergency response, and inter-agency coordination.

In total, the ETF logged 603 election-related incidents—a daunting number that only hinted at the pressure on the ground. Issues ranged from malfunctioning vote-counting machines (VCMs) and mismatched ballots to long queues caused by errors in voter lists. Most concerns were swiftly resolved by regional and divisional ETF units. A select few were escalated to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) for further action.

The bulk of the reports originated from Region IX, BARMM, and NCR, underscoring the geographical diversity—and the systemic challenges—that our educators bravely tackled head-on.

Despite the occasional chaos, DepEd and COMELEC stood united in declaring the 2025 polls largely peaceful, a testament to the professionalism and resilience of those manning the frontlines.

“In line with the assessment of the COMELEC and other agencies, we can say that overall, the elections were conducted smoothly,” said Undersecretary Malcolm Garma, chair of the DepEd ETF.

Beyond the Call of Duty

It’s easy to forget, amid the haze of election headlines, that many of these teacher-volunteers returned home not just physically exhausted, but emotionally drained. Some endured sleepless nights, skipped meals, and faced hostile voters or technical failures with unwavering poise. They did all this not for recognition, but out of a deep, unshakeable sense of duty.

“These are not just public servants,” Secretary Angara emphasized. “They are frontliners of democracy.”

And he is right.

For far too long, the role of teachers in elections has been overlooked—treated as a mere procedural necessity. But the truth is more profound: without them, the gears of our democratic machinery would grind to a halt.

A Call for Continued Support

As the dust settles on the 2025 polls, DepEd reaffirmed its pledge to stand by its personnel—not just during elections, but throughout their public service journey. This includes advocating for better protection, higher compensation, and comprehensive welfare measures, especially for teachers who risk their well-being to safeguard the electoral process.

Their bravery, composure, and patriotism deserve more than a momentary acknowledgment. They deserve lasting institutional support and a nation’s enduring gratitude.

The Unseen Victors

In every corner of the Philippines, where ballot boxes were opened and the voice of the people echoed loud and clear, there stood a teacher—vigilant, patient, and resolute. While candidates celebrate their wins and voters return to their daily routines, these educators quietly resume their own mission: nurturing minds, shaping futures, and defending democracy—one lesson, one election at a time.

To the unsung heroes of the 2025 elections, the Wazzup Pilipinas team echoes the nation’s heartfelt salute.

You are more than just educators.

You are the lifeblood of a democracy in motion.

You are the hope bearers of a Bagong Pilipinas.

The Truth About Duterte’s Laws: Between Signature and Substance

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

As the conversation around the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act (RA 10931) heats up again — often misrepresented as a solo accomplishment of former President Rodrigo Duterte — it’s time to look deeper, not just into that one law, but into the broader pattern of how laws under his administration were often contradicted by his very own actions, statements, and policies.

Let’s get one thing clear: democracy does not work by decree. No president, no matter how popular, creates laws alone. The Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act was authored and pushed by Senator Bam Aquino in the Senate and Sarah Elago of Kabataan Partylist in the House. Only after both houses ratified the bill did Duterte sign it into law — a ceremonial but necessary act in the democratic process.

Yet we now witness waves of misinformation, especially from certain circles in Davao, proclaiming Duterte as the lone hero behind free college education. This kind of historical revisionism undermines not only the real authors of the law but also the entire legislative process. As Inday Espina-Varona bluntly puts it, "Konting hiya naman."

But this goes beyond just one law. As the founder of Wazzup Pilipinas, I believe in laying out the truth — however inconvenient it may be. So let’s examine the laws Duterte signed during his presidency that appeared, at first glance, to champion human rights, transparency, and good governance — and contrast these with his actual governance and public behavior.

1. RA 11032 – Ease of Doing Business and Efficient Government Service Delivery Act of 2018

Purpose: Streamline government processes and cut red tape.

Contradiction: Duterte’s approach leaned heavily on threats and public humiliation of officials rather than structural reform. Despite the law, inefficiencies persisted, and no comprehensive audit of improvements was publicly released.

2. RA 11036 – Mental Health Act of 2018

Purpose: Promote mental health awareness and rights.

Contradiction: Duterte openly mocked mental illness in speeches, once joking that people who see psychiatrists are “crazy,” earning backlash from mental health advocates who felt these remarks betrayed the spirit of the law.

3. RA 11313 – Safe Spaces Act (Bawal Bastos Law)

Purpose: Protect individuals from gender-based harassment.

Contradiction: Duterte himself was accused of violating this law through misogynistic remarks, rape jokes, and inappropriate public acts — including kissing a woman on stage — all widely condemned by human rights and women’s groups.

4. RA 11479 – Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020

Purpose: Combat terrorism with safeguards for civil liberties.

Contradiction: The law was heavily criticized for enabling red-tagging and suppressing dissent. Activists and journalists were labeled as terrorists without due process, raising alarms locally and globally over human rights abuses.

5. RA 10973 – Granting the PNP Chief Subpoena Powers

Purpose: Strengthen police investigative powers.

Contradiction: This law became a tool for harassment of political opponents and activists, especially amid the brutal war on drugs and the crackdown on perceived communists. Warrantless arrests and abuses increased during this time.

6. RA 10951 – Revised Penal Code Amendments (Including Decriminalizing Libel Fines)

Purpose: Update antiquated penalties, especially on libel.

Contradiction: Despite these amendments, Duterte pursued media entities like ABS-CBN and Rappler, using multiple legal fronts against journalists like Maria Ressa — actions widely seen as politically motivated suppression of press freedom.

7. RA 11223 – Universal Health Care Act

Purpose: Ensure health coverage for all Filipinos.

Contradiction: The pandemic response under Duterte was marred by inefficiencies, opaque vaccine deals, and poor healthcare worker protection. The PhilHealth corruption scandal further eroded public trust in the system the law aimed to strengthen.

8. RA 10931 – Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act

Purpose: Provide free tuition in public universities and colleges.

Contradiction: While not directly violated, critics say the law suffered from poor support and implementation, especially during the pandemic's shift to online learning, where public universities lacked adequate resources.

Conclusion: Signature Does Not Equal Legacy

Yes, Duterte signed all these laws. On paper, they represent progressive reforms. But governance is not measured by signatures — it is measured by consistency and integrity. You cannot sign a Mental Health Act while mocking the mentally ill. You cannot sign a Safe Spaces Act while publicly objectifying women. You cannot promote press freedom while weaponizing libel laws.

Filipinos must stop equating legislative authorship with ceremonial approval. The true champions of these reforms are the lawmakers who crafted, debated, and defended these bills — often under fire, and against resistance. Duterte was part of the process, yes — but he was not the originator of these ideas.

To credit him solely is to erase the work of true public servants and to mislead the next generation about how democracy works.

As Barnaby Lo said, "The truth is that’s how a democracy works — different branches working together for the benefit of the people." Let’s not allow propaganda to distort that truth.

Because no law is to one man’s sole credit.

Wazzup Pilipinas will continue to uphold truth, expose propaganda, and educate the Filipino people on how real progress is made — through collaboration, transparency, and the courage to speak truth to power.