In a disturbing sign of our polarised times, there are memes being shared on social media about the separation of the Philippines into Luzon on one side, and Visayas and Mindanao on another.
This call for “VisMin independence” needs to be met with clear heads and honest facts.
First, dragging the Visayas into this narrative is a red herring. The Duterte bloc’s true base is Davao, and even Mindanao, by revenue, cannot sustain itself. It remains a net recipient of national funds, its infrastructure and social programs largely supported by allocations from the central government. The notion that it is being “exploited” by Imperial Manila reverses reality.
Second, the current revival of secession talk is not about southern pride or dignity. It is about the survival of a dynasty whose political influence is fading. It tries to repackage personal ambition as regional awakening, invoking resentment to mask corruption and failure. Yet Duterte’s ascent was never powered by the South. It was propped up by opportunistic politicians from Luzon who saw in him an authoritarian they could use. What they built was not a southern movement but an alliance of convenience that plundered the whole nation.
Third, the claim that “Imperial Manila” shuts out southern leadership is false. The nation has long embraced leaders from the South. Sergio Osmeña Sr. of Cebu guided the country’s reconstruction after World War II. Carlos P. Garcia of Bohol led with integrity and nationalism under the “Filipino First” policy. Lito Osmeña came within reach of the presidency, losing only through election irregularities. Far from rejecting the South, the Filipino people have often looked to it for wisdom and balance. What the country rejects is not geography but corruption, cruelty, and deceit.
Fourth, the historical analogies offered by secessionists are misleading. Brunei never “walked away” from Malaysia; it declined to join the federation in 1963. The Sultan refused to surrender control of oil revenues or royal authority and, after the failed Brunei Revolt of 1962, remained under British protection. Brunei achieved full independence only in 1984, already wealthy, unified, and secured by British defense.
Singapore, meanwhile, did not secede. It was expelled from the Malaysian Federation in 1965 after racial and political conflicts. Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew wept on national television, describing it as “a moment of anguish.” Independence was not a triumph of rebellion but the result of rejection. Singapore’s later success arose from discipline, meritocracy, and moral governance, not from defiance or dynasty.
Neither Brunei nor Singapore provides a realistic template for Visayas or Mindanao. Brunei had oil and unity; Singapore had institutions and integrity. The Duterte bloc offers neither. Independence without reform merely multiplies corruption by province.
Fifth, this renewed talk of secession may be more than political theater. It may be a deliberate red herring, designed to divide the nation further and draw the Philippines closer to China under the pretext of “southern sovereignty.” A fragmented archipelago serves the interests of those who covet our seas and silence our democracy.
If there is indeed a great divide, it is not between North and South. It is between those who serve and those who steal, those who love the Philippines and those who would surrender it to China. The real emancipation of the South will not come from rebellion but from reform, from the courage to confront corruption within its own ranks and reject the manipulation of those who claim to speak for it.
The South deserves empowerment, not exploitation of its grievances. What our nation needs is not another border on the map but a moral frontier crossed within every public servant’s heart.
Because the truest freedom is not separation, but liberation from deceit and corruption.