A ‘designated survivor’ for the Philippines

Metro Manila, Philippines – Vice President Sara Duterte said on Wednesday appointing herself as “designated survivor” was neither a joke nor a bomb threat.

In a chance interview ahead of her last day as education chief, Duterte refused to explain her previous statement.

“It's my first time to see that you are looking for the attendance of the vice president… I think many missed the point so for me, if you did not understand the first time, I don't think you don't deserve an explanation,” she said in English and Bisaya.

Duterte appointed herself to the role last week after saying that she would skip for the first time the State of the Nation Address on July 22. 

In the United States, a designated survivor usually involves a Cabinet member appointed by the White House who stays in a secure location during gatherings where all officials in the line of succession are present, ensuring continuity of government in case of a catastrophic event that wipes out the entire leadership.

The process has no local counterpart. But should the country have one?

Legislative attempt

During the 18th Congress in 2019, Senator Ping Lacson filed a bill that seeks to extend the line of succession. Under the Constitution, the next in line is the vice president, Senate president, and House speaker.

In Lacson’s proposal, the following should act as president when all officials in succession are not able to fulfill the role:

+ the most senior senator based on the length of service in the Senate or if there be none, or in the event of his removal, death, resignation or of his inability to act as president

+ the most senior representative based on the length of service in the House of Representatives or if there be none, or in the event of his removal, death, resignation or of his inability to act as president

+ the member of the Cabinet designated by the President.

The bill failed to go beyond the committee. Based on the Senate website, there is no similarity in the 19th Congress.

Understanding the context

Political analyst and San Beda Graduate School of Law professor Edmund Tayao, said the issue should be taken in context.

“The concept of designated survivor started in the 1950s that was during the start of the Cold War. And because of the Cold War and because of the possession of nuclear power, which is of course a weapon of mass destruction, they took it necessary that at any given time that all officials of government are in the same place and gathered on the same occasion, there has to be someone who will be left behind so that he/she can take over in the event of a crisis,” he told NewsWatch Plus.

Tayao said the Philippines has never faced a situation close to the Cold War, which prompted legislation for a designated survivor in the US.

“Of course people can argue that we are in some kind of loggerheads with China but today’s day and age is not comparable to the time of the Cold War,” Tayao said.

‘Inappropriate and reckless’

Some lawmakers slammed Duterte for her remarks, calling it inappropriate and reckless.

In a statement, Isabela Representative Inno Dy said the vice president’s pronouncements may influence public perception and national stability.

“Such rhetoric hints at scenarios that are alarming and baseless, sowing unnecessary fear among the public,” he was quoted saying in a press release.

House Senior Deputy Speaker Aurelio “Dong” Gonzales Jr. also urged Duterte to be more responsible in her public remarks.

“This is unnecessary and uncalled for to say the least. The VP is creating or wreaking havoc to the general public. She’s alarming the people,” Gonzales said in a statement.

Asked if Duterte’s remarks could be deemed a security threat, Tayao said this depends on one’s interpretation.

“If one is going to look at it with malicious intent, it can be interpreted of course, a way of warning, a way of saying that hey it’s possible that there will be such an attack and therefore, someone has to be ready to take over the reins of government. Pero ayun na nga, that’s being malicious,” he said.

(Translation: If one is going to look at it with malicious intent, it can be interpreted of course, a way of warning, a way of saying that hey it’s possible that there will be such an attack and therefore, someone has to be ready to take over the reins of government. But that’s being malicious.)