Calling for a Mindanao secession may be utterly dismissed as ridiculous paroxysms of defanged semi-feudal lords committing politicide. 

Having said that, we may address such a contemptible call for dismembering the country to thoroughly demolish it so that it won’t further hoodwink the gullible.

The call for a Mindanao breakaway, of course, comes from former president Rodrigo Duterte, who seems to be of the firm belief he is still the island’s overlord.

Last week, Duterte said local political forces would be regrouping in his political base, the Davao Region, to start a movement for Mindanao independence.

Mindanao, claimed Duterte, would rather be “independent since nothing has happened in the Philippines after so many presidents. Whatever we do [under the present setup], there will be another lousy president.”

Aside from the cruelest of ironies that Duterte practically admitted he was also a lousy president, this is Duterte’s underhanded way of undermining President Bongbong Marcos’ political legitimacy. 

Highlighting political illegitimacy in his raw, all-out fight against Marcos is the true political motive of Duterte’s somewhat muddled statements about the country’s woeful state.

Duterte, of course, has many selfish personal reasons for detesting Marcos’ political legitimacy. 

Pertinent reasons like the ICC issue and his dynasty’s share of government funds are some of them. 

But the underlying political motive is also interesting. 

By explicitly denying political legitimacy to the incumbent, Duterte intends that by first refusing the present system of power, he consequently refuses the authority of those who command such power.

Not recognizing political legitimacy, however, is the flip side of the legitimacy coin. The other side is about social legitimacy. Political legitimacy is separate from social legitimacy.

Not recognizing political legitimacy also means not recognizing the legitimacy of the present economic order and social order in its entirety.

This is pretty much clear after Duterte said the new Mindanao independence movement is to be headed by his erstwhile longtime ally, Davao del Norte Rep. Pantaleon Alvarez.

Explaining the Mindanao breakaway, Alvarez said they will follow what Singapore did in the 1960s when it separated from Malaysia to become an independent state.

And Alvarez believes that should Mindanao secede, the island will be better off. “Singapore is a small country… it has no resources of its own. Mindanao has a lot of natural resources; we have bigger potential,” Alvarez says.

Here, Alvarez is actually saying their movement has social legitimacy since they have a vision of what type of good society they’re aspiring to.

Semi-authoritarian Singapore is Duterte’s and Alvarez’s representation of a good society.

Understandably, the duo is making such an effort at a vision since every envisioned political regime must define itself first by a notion of legitimacy through an ideal. 

Yet why is highlighting political illegitimacy and seeking a good society crucial for convincing Mindanao citizens to reject existing politics and society?

Well, it’s because once Mindanao citizens “feel” that the political, economic, and social orders are fundamentally illegitimate, they will “feel unfree.” Once the majority of these citizens are convinced they “feel unfree,” they’ll consent to wherever a power-seeking minority steers them.

Curiously, however, to achieve their goal, Duterte and Alvarez “will follow the process provided by the UN to gather signatures, verify these under oath and in the presence of (witnesses), to signify that the people want to separate (from the country).

Involving the UN as overseer is nothing less than a direct assault on the Constitution and its democratic procedures for change, which is contrary to what Duterte is saying in his war with the incumbent. 

It discloses at the same time suspicions both Duterte and Alvarez are dispensing with the present Constitution’s guarantees of conferring legality on the exercise of power and limiting the arbitrary power of those who govern by firmly settled laws.