Why do I write this blog

I write this blog because:
A Hard-Hitting Look at Church Sexual Abuse in the Philippines—and How Every Presidency Has Helped Sustain the Culture of Silence

Sexual abuse within the Catholic Church is not a new story, but in the Philippines—where the Church is one of the most powerful institutions in the country—it is a story that keeps getting buried, softened, or forgotten. And while no Philippine president may openly condone such crimes, every administration has contributed to an environment where abuse can be ignored, mishandled, or quietly swept under the rug.

This is not about pointing fingers at one president.
This is about recognizing a pattern of political cowardice, a decades-long refusal by the nation’s highest leaders to confront an institution long regarded as untouchable.

1. The Church’s Political Power Keeps Presidents on a Leash

For generations, the Catholic Church has shaped elections, influenced national policies, and acted as a moral gatekeeper. No president wants to be seen as “anti-church”—not when a bishop’s public criticism can damage approval ratings or turn voters against an administration.

The result?
Presidents tiptoe around church misconduct, even when the crimes involve children.

Instead of treating abuse as a national crisis, administrations often default to diplomatic silence—hoping the Church will “handle it internally,” which history has shown usually means transferring the accused, downplaying the case, or burying it entirely.

1. Political Leaders Have Created a System Where Accountability Is Optional

It is easy to blame rogue priests.
It is harder—but more honest—to admit that the political system itself enables abuse.

For decades, Philippine presidents have failed to:

Strengthen child protection systems

Fund independent investigative bodies

Protect whistleblowers and survivors

Confront powerful dioceses when needed

Break the culture of secrecy surrounding church misconduct

This failure is not passive.
It is a choice.

A choice to avoid conflict with an institution that can sway public opinion.
A choice to value political convenience over children’s safety.

1. Silence Has Always Been the Preferred Presidential Strategy

Whether conservative or progressive, authoritarian or populist, most presidents share one common strategy regarding church abuse: stay silent and stay safe.

Why?

Because challenging the Church comes with political costs.
Because moral authority is a currency in Philippine politics.
Because presidents know they can lose more by confronting abuse than by ignoring it.

And this silence has consequences:
It shields predators, discourages victims, and deepens the Church’s culture of impunity.

1. Hard Truth: The State Has Allowed the Church to Police Itself—and Children Pay the Price

No institution should be allowed to handle crimes within its own walls without independent oversight—especially when those crimes involve minors.

But in the Philippines, that is exactly what has happened for generations.

When abuse allegations surface, dioceses often deal with the issue internally first, while authorities wait, watch, or simply avoid stepping in unless public outrage forces action.

This is not effective governance.
This is state-enabled silence.

And silence is a predator’s greatest ally.

1. Abuse Persists Because the Presidency Has Never Made It a Priority

The Philippine presidency holds enormous power—power to set national priorities, reform institutions, and demand accountability from any sector, including the Church.

But no administration has ever treated church sexual abuse as:

a public health issue

a national safety issue

a systemic institutional crisis

Instead, it is treated as an occasional scandal, a “local diocesan matter,” or a taboo topic better avoided.

This neglect is not neutral.
It perpetuates harm.

1. What Real Leadership Would Look Like

A president truly committed to protecting Filipino children—not political relationships—would:

Enforce mandatory reporting of abuse by religious institutions

Demand independent investigations, not internal church processes

Fund survivor support systems nationwide

Publicly challenge institutions that hide offenders

Criminalize the transfer of accused clergy to avoid prosecution

Ensure investigations continue even without media pressure

These reforms require political courage—courage that has been painfully absent at the national level.

Conclusion: The Link Between Church Abuse and the Presidency Is Not Personal—It Is Structural

No president needs to commit abuse to be complicit in its persistence.
All they need to do is look away.

And for decades, Philippine presidents have done exactly that.

They have allowed an institution with enormous moral and political power to exist beyond the reach of full accountability. They have allowed children to become collateral damage in the preservation of political alliances. They have allowed silence to triumph over justice.

The relationship between church abuse and the presidency is not about direct involvement.
It is about the power leaders choose not to use.

And until a president finally breaks this cycle, the culture of silence will continue—and children will continue to pay the highest price.