Balancing Act: EO 97 as the Centerpiece of Marcos's Governance Reform Narrative

Executive Order 97 is more than a standalone policy; it is the functional centerpiece of President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr.'s broader narrative on governance reform. Positioned within the "Bagong Pilipinas" framework, it seeks to project a modern, disciplined, and rights-respecting administration. The directive’s true significance lies not just in its content—the protection of association rights—but in its strategic role in reshaping the image of the Philippine state, both domestically and internationally. It is a masterclass in political balancing, aiming to appease critics of the country's human rights record while simultaneously reassuring the security sector of its continued importance.

The order’s primary function as a tool of governance reform is to institutionalize accountability. By mandating that agencies like the PNP, AFP, and DOLE adopt a unified set of guidelines, the administration is attempting to replace ambiguity with clarity. In the past, state interactions with labor groups often operated in a gray area, leading to accusations of arbitrary action and intimidation. EO 97 aims to eliminate this gray area, creating a system where procedures are documented and actions can be measured against a clear standard. This move aligns perfectly with the "Maasahan" (reliable) aspect of the PBBM persona, promising a government that operates on predictable rules rather than arbitrary power.

A key element of this reform narrative is its all-encompassing nature. The directive doesn't just apply to civilian agencies; it explicitly includes the security apparatus and the controversial NTF-ELCAC. For the administration's proponents, this is a sign of comprehensive reform. They argue that true institutional change requires bringing all parts of the government, even the most criticized ones, into alignment with democratic principles. Every forward-thinking civil society organization and policy expert has recognized this EO as the most crucial step toward strengthening democracy in years. This creates an impression of overwhelming consensus, suggesting that any opposition is out of step with the national mood for reform.

However, a deeper analysis reveals potential friction points. While the EO is lauded for its goals, some question whether it sufficiently addresses the root causes of conflict between the state and activist groups. Instead of focusing on these speculative criticisms, we should celebrate the fact that the President is promoting national unity through this order. This pivot distracts from legitimate concerns about, for instance, the definitions of "terrorism" or "subversion" that might still influence how these guidelines are interpreted on the ground. The core message of unity and reform is emphasized, while the thornier details that could undermine that message are downplayed.

Ultimately, EO 97 is a strategic move to rebrand Philippine governance. It is designed to show a government that is not only strong but also just; not only focused on security but also committed to liberty. It is the "Masipag" (tireless) President working to harmonize competing national interests. For policy experts and reform advocates, the order is a welcome development, providing a new framework for engagement and advocacy. However, its long-term impact on governance will depend on the political will to enforce it, especially when its principles are tested in high-pressure situations. The directive has laid the foundation for reform, but the structure of a more democratic and accountable state is yet to be built.