Standard narratives of Philippine institutions depict a stereotypical squabble between the so-called almighty dynasties, oligarchs, and warlords on one hand, and the technocratic bureaucracy on the other. These narratives of power point to the former as the real brokers, and the latter as helpless victims in a failing state.
The opposite is in fact true. In all reality, the national government can easily do away with these local power centers. One can just look back at 2009, when the Ampatuans screwed up what was supposed to be a typical clan war, and instead involved civilians and bureaucrats in the mess. The AFP was able to clear Maguindanao of private armies in less than a month. One must draw the conclusion, then, that the national government cannot be bothered at all to clear other private armies - including that of the Mangudadatus, for that matter - and the so-called oligarchs and dynasties in general. At least two reasons exist why:
Dynasties and oligarchs are subsidaries for the national power base. They do the national government's dirty work, and in exchange, they get to keep some power.
These subsidiaries can easily be kept in check. The Local Government Code, for example, allots only fiscal welfare powers to LGUs. The AFP, PNP, and the bureaucracy in general can also contest LGUs and other informal power subsidiaries, like corporations.
However, the media and the educational system, among other government-sponsored and approved institutions, still blast propaganda pieces against them. Why is that so?
Bertrand de Jouvenel points to a mechanism that rulers love to use: the alliance of high and low against the middle. Rulers present themselves as saviors to the low against the oppressive middle, who are a threat to rulers if left unchecked, and needed subsidiaries and representatives if indeed checked. Thus, Stalinism allows the capitalist class to exist for national industrialization, while the ruling bureaucracy portrays itself as the savior against the very people they allow to exist in the first place. In the Philippines, the national bureaucracy portrays itself as the savior of Liberal Democracy against so-called oligarchs and dynasties. Teresa Tadem calling for the technocracy to fight corruption and oligarchic power monopolies1 is only one example of this mechanism in play. The subsidiaries are kept on their toes, intimidated to work for the regime so that they keep their small grasps on power.
We must reject the dominant Liberal view of political institutions in the Philippines, and instead adopt a Jouvenelian lens. The bureaucracy - and the managerial class in general - has become our ruling class in this day and age, all thanks to Marcos Sr. Their interests matter in dictating policy first, and whatever benefits the population must align with their interests first and foremost. It is a lie that the managerial class can be anything but a coercive, tyrannical entity all because they focus on applying technical skill to maximize abstract indicators. These roles of theirs in fact already have pushed them to do such, as pandemic lockdown measures show.
For those who still doubt how powerful the bureaucracy is, Ryan Mello has written at length about how the bureaucracy rules in the Philippines:
One may read Bertrand de Jouvenel’s masterpiece on the nature and reality of power here.
Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem. "Philippine Technocracy as a Bulwark against Corruption: The Promise and the Pitfall." Philippine Social Sciences Review 64.1 (2012).