Ilocos Norte, Philippines – President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. delivered a starkly contrasting campaign speech at the Alyansa Para sa Bagong Pilipinas proclamation rally on Tuesday, February 11, eschewing his previous calls for unity and instead framing the upcoming 2025 elections as a critical choice between his administration's vision for a "Bagong Pilipinas" (New Philippines) and a return to the policies and controversies of his predecessor, Rodrigo Duterte.
The rally, a vibrant spectacle featuring senatorial candidates performing the energetic "budots" dance, interspersed with nostalgic reminiscences about the post-Martial Law era, served as a backdrop for the President's powerful message. Surrounded by loyal Ilocano supporters and his twelve anointed senatorial candidates, Marcos painted a clear picture of the stakes involved in the forthcoming elections.
- TikTok Restored After 12-Hour Outage: A Triumph for Free Speech, or a Temporary Reprieve?
- Former Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Passes Away at 92
- Kiko and Bam's Cavite Return: A Senatorial Campaign Launch and a Look Back at 2022
Speaking from his political stronghold in Laoag City, Ilocos Norte – a region where the Marcos family holds considerable influence – the President addressed the crowd in a prepared speech, declaring, "Tayo ngayon ay nasa sangandaan ng ating paglalakbay bilang isang malayang bansa, bilang isang sambayanang may dangal, may sipag, at may talino" (We are at a crossroads in our journey as a free nation, as a nation with dignity, industriousness, and intellect). The red-clad crowd responded with a mixture of enthusiastic cheers and attentive silence, a testament to the deep-seated loyalty the Marcos family enjoys in this region.
Marcos's speech subtly, yet pointedly, contrasted his administration's policies with those of the Duterte era. He posed a series of rhetorical questions to his supporters, implicitly criticizing Duterte's approach to governance. He asked whether they desired a return to a time when the Philippines was perceived as being unduly influenced by China, a period characterized by concerns over sovereignty and national interests. He further questioned whether the nation should revert to a path where the country's economic policies prioritized foreign gambling interests, potentially at the expense of national development and social welfare. Most pointedly, he alluded to the violence and human rights concerns that marked a significant portion of the Duterte administration, invoking the image of "blood" spilled, referencing the extrajudicial killings that plagued the previous regime.
This campaign strategy marks a significant departure from Marcos's previous emphasis on unity and reconciliation. His 2022 presidential campaign focused heavily on unifying the nation after a period of deep political division. However, his speech on Tuesday signaled a shift towards a more confrontational approach, directly contrasting his administration's vision with the perceived shortcomings of the previous government. This strategic move could be interpreted as an attempt to galvanize support by appealing to a sense of national pride and progress, while simultaneously framing the opposition as a threat to the achievements of his administration.
The President's choice of venue and the presence of his chosen senatorial candidates underscore the importance of the 2025 elections. The rally served not only as a proclamation event but also as a powerful display of the Marcos family's enduring political strength in Ilocos Norte. The selection of senatorial candidates, many with strong ties to the Marcos clan, further solidifies the President's attempt to maintain his political influence and ensure the continuation of his administration's agenda.
The 2025 elections promise to be a pivotal moment in Philippine politics. President Marcos's framing of the election as a choice between progress and regression sets the stage for a potentially intense political battle. His campaign strategy, characterized by a direct confrontation with the legacy of the Duterte administration, will undoubtedly shape the discourse and influence the outcome of the elections. The coming months will be crucial in determining how the electorate responds to this stark choice and what direction the Philippines will take in the years to come. The success of Marcos's "Bagong Pilipinas" vision hinges on convincing the nation that it represents a clear and preferable alternative to the past.
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.'s recent campaign rally in Ilocos Norte marked a significant shift in his political messaging, drawing a stark contrast between his administration's policies and those of his predecessor, Rodrigo Duterte. While Marcos previously emphasized unity and reconciliation, his speech directly confronted Duterte's legacy, particularly highlighting the controversial drug war, foreign policy decisions, and the proliferation of Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs). This strategic move positions the 2025 elections as a referendum on the past and a choice between diverging paths for the Philippines.
Duterte's Controversial Legacy:
The speech implicitly criticized key aspects of the Duterte administration. Domestically, Duterte's legacy is indelibly linked to his brutal anti-drug campaign, characterized by widespread extrajudicial killings and a failure to meet his promise of eradicating illegal drugs and crime within "three to six months." The human rights implications of this campaign have drawn international condemnation and continue to fuel domestic debate.
On the foreign policy front, Duterte's administration was marked by a policy of appeasement towards China, prioritizing the cultivation of a friendly relationship with the Asian superpower even at the expense of asserting the Philippines' sovereign rights in the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea). This included a notable failure to fully utilize the 2016 Arbitral Award, which affirmed the Philippines' claims in the disputed waters. Furthermore, the Duterte administration's embrace of POGOs, initially presented as an economic opportunity, ultimately led to significant concerns regarding human rights abuses, rampant scams, and money laundering activities within these operations.
Rodrigo Duterte's six-year presidency was marked by a series of controversial policies and actions that have left a lasting impact on the Philippines. His legacy is a complex tapestry woven from both successes and failures, with particular emphasis on his signature "war on drugs" and his foreign policy approach towards China.
The Bloody "War on Drugs":
Duterte's most infamous and controversial policy was his "war on drugs," launched shortly after his inauguration in 2016. He promised to eradicate illegal drugs and crime within "three to six months," and his campaign was characterized by a brutal crackdown on suspected drug users and dealers. The campaign resulted in thousands of extrajudicial killings, with human rights organizations estimating the death toll to be far higher than the official figures. Duterte's pronouncements, including his infamous statement that he would be "happy to slaughter" three million drug addicts, fueled international condemnation and sparked an investigation by the International Criminal Court (ICC). While Duterte withdrew the Philippines from the ICC, the investigation continues.
The "war on drugs" has been widely criticized for its disregard for due process and human rights. The killings were often carried out by unidentified masked gunmen, dubbed "vigilantes" by the Philippine media, and there was a lack of accountability for these extrajudicial executions. The campaign also fueled a climate of fear and impunity, with many citizens fearing for their safety and hesitant to speak out against the violence.
Rodrigo Duterte's presidency (2016-2022) remains indelibly marked by his controversial "war on drugs," a campaign that unleashed a wave of violence and impunity across the Philippines. While presented as a necessary measure to combat the country's drug problem, the campaign resulted in thousands of extrajudicial killings, sparking widespread condemnation from human rights organizations and the international community. The legacy of this brutal crackdown continues to shape the political and social landscape of the nation.
Shortly after his inauguration in 2016, President Duterte launched his "war on drugs" with a promise to eradicate illegal drugs and crime within a timeframe of "three to six months." This ambitious pledge, however, quickly gave way to a brutal reality. The campaign targeted suspected drug users and dealers, often without due process or fair trial. Killings were carried out with shocking frequency, often by unidentified masked gunmen referred to by the Philippine media as "vigilantes." The government's official death toll paled in comparison to the estimates provided by human rights organizations, which documented thousands of extrajudicial killings.
Duterte's own pronouncements fueled the violence and international condemnation. His infamous statement that he would be "happy to slaughter" three million drug addicts, while often dismissed as hyperbole, served as a chilling reflection of the campaign's disregard for human life. The campaign's brutality sparked an investigation by the International Criminal Court (ICC), which Duterte responded to by withdrawing the Philippines from the court's jurisdiction. Despite this withdrawal, the ICC investigation continues, underscoring the international concern over the human rights violations associated with the drug war.
The "war on drugs" created a pervasive climate of fear and impunity across the Philippines. The lack of accountability for the extrajudicial killings emboldened perpetrators, while the threat of violence silenced potential witnesses and critics. Many citizens lived in fear, hesitant to speak out against the killings or report drug-related crimes for fear of becoming targets themselves. This climate of fear stifled dissent and undermined the rule of law, eroding trust in government institutions.
The human cost of the drug war extends far beyond the staggering number of extrajudicial killings. Families have been torn apart, communities have been traumatized, and the social fabric of the nation has been deeply damaged. The campaign disproportionately affected poor and marginalized communities, exacerbating existing inequalities and fueling social unrest. The long-term consequences of the drug war, including its impact on public health, mental health, and social cohesion, are still unfolding.
The international community widely condemned the human rights violations associated with the Duterte drug war. Numerous human rights organizations documented the abuses, highlighting the lack of due process, the extrajudicial killings, and the climate of impunity. The ICC investigation, despite the Philippines' withdrawal, represents a significant step towards accountability. The ongoing scrutiny from international bodies and human rights organizations underscores the gravity of the situation and the need for justice for the victims.
The Duterte drug war remains a deeply controversial and significant aspect of his presidency. While the campaign may have achieved a temporary reduction in drug-related crime in some areas, the cost in human lives and the erosion of human rights have left an enduring legacy of violence and impunity. The long-term consequences of this campaign, including its impact on social justice, the rule of law, and international relations, continue to be debated and analyzed. The pursuit of justice for the victims and the establishment of accountability for those responsible remain crucial steps in confronting this dark chapter in Philippine history.
Foreign Policy and China:
Duterte's foreign policy was marked by a shift towards China, prioritizing the cultivation of a friendly relationship with the Asian superpower even at the expense of asserting the Philippines' sovereign rights in the West Philippine Sea. This approach was seen as a departure from the Philippines' traditional alliance with the United States. Duterte's administration refrained from fully utilizing the 2016 Arbitral Award, which affirmed the Philippines' claims in the disputed waters, and instead sought to engage with China through bilateral negotiations.
This approach, while aimed at improving economic ties with China, was criticized for its lack of assertiveness in defending the Philippines' territorial integrity. It also raised concerns about the Philippines' vulnerability to Chinese pressure in the region.
Rodrigo Duterte's presidency (2016-2022) was marked by a significant shift in the Philippines' foreign policy, characterized by a pivot towards China that prioritized the cultivation of friendly relations with the Asian superpower, even at the expense of asserting the nation's sovereign rights in the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea). This strategic realignment, a departure from the Philippines' long-standing alliance with the United States, has generated considerable debate and analysis, raising crucial questions about the country's national security and its place in the complex geopolitical landscape of the Asia-Pacific region.
Duterte's foreign policy represented a dramatic departure from the Philippines' traditional reliance on its alliance with the United States. While previous administrations had maintained a close relationship with the US, providing a crucial security umbrella and fostering economic cooperation, Duterte prioritized building stronger ties with China, viewing it as a key economic partner and a potential counterbalance to American influence. This pivot was driven by Duterte's belief that closer relations with China would bring significant economic benefits to the Philippines, particularly in terms of infrastructure development and investment.
The most significant aspect of Duterte's China policy was his approach to the ongoing dispute in the West Philippine Sea. In 2016, an international arbitral tribunal unequivocally affirmed the Philippines' sovereign rights over a significant portion of the disputed waters, rejecting China's expansive claims based on its "nine-dash line." However, under Duterte's leadership, the Philippines largely refrained from fully utilizing this legal victory. Instead of leveraging the arbitral award to exert pressure on China and protect its maritime interests, Duterte's administration opted for a strategy of engagement and appeasement.
This decision sparked considerable criticism both domestically and internationally. Critics argued that Duterte's approach undermined the Philippines' territorial integrity and emboldened China's assertive actions in the region. The lack of forceful response to China's continued encroachment on Philippine waters fueled concerns about the country's vulnerability and its ability to protect its sovereign rights.
Duterte's administration justified its China-friendly policy by emphasizing the potential economic benefits of closer ties. Increased Chinese investment in infrastructure projects, such as the "Build, Build, Build" program, was presented as a key driver of economic growth. However, critics cautioned against the potential risks associated with this economic dependence on China. Concerns arose regarding the potential for economic coercion, the lack of transparency in some Chinese-funded projects, and the potential for compromising national security interests in exchange for economic gains.
The long-term consequences of Duterte's China pivot remain a subject of ongoing debate. While some argue that it fostered improved economic relations with China, others maintain that it compromised the Philippines' national security and its standing in the international community. The lack of assertive action in the West Philippine Sea has emboldened China's activities in the region, raising concerns about the future stability of the area. Furthermore, the shift away from the traditional alliance with the United States has raised questions about the Philippines' ability to maintain its security and its strategic partnerships in the face of growing regional tensions.
Duterte's foreign policy represents a significant turning point in the Philippines' relationship with China and its place in the Asia-Pacific region. His decision to prioritize economic ties with China over the assertive defense of its sovereign rights in the West Philippine Sea has left a legacy of uncertainty. The long-term implications of this policy shift will continue to unfold, shaping the Philippines' geopolitical standing and its ability to navigate the complex challenges of the 21st century. The debate over the wisdom of this approach and its impact on the nation's security and future trajectory will undoubtedly continue for years to come.
Other Controversial Policies:
Beyond the "war on drugs" and China policy, Duterte's presidency was also marked by other controversial policies and actions. These included:
The passage of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020: This law was criticized for its broad definition of terrorism, which could be used to target critics of the government.
Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA) during the Rodrigo Duterte administration remains a highly contentious issue in the Philippines, sparking widespread criticism from human rights organizations, legal experts, and civil society groups. The law, lauded by supporters as a necessary tool to combat terrorism, has been widely condemned for its vague definition of terrorism, its potential for abuse, and its chilling effect on freedom of expression and dissent. This article delves into the controversy surrounding the ATA, examining its provisions, its impact on Philippine society, and its enduring legacy.
The core of the controversy surrounding the ATA lies in its broad and vaguely defined provisions concerning terrorism. The law defines terrorism in such a way that it could potentially encompass a wide range of activities, including peaceful protests, dissent, and even legitimate criticism of the government. This ambiguity raises serious concerns about the potential for the law to be misused to target political opponents, activists, and journalists critical of the administration.
Critics argue that the ATA's broad definition of terrorism, coupled with its provisions for warrantless arrests and prolonged detention without charge, creates a significant risk of abuse and misuse. The law allows for the detention of suspects for up to 24 days without a warrant, a provision that has raised concerns about the potential for arbitrary arrests and the denial of due process. Furthermore, the law's provisions regarding the designation of terrorist organizations and individuals are vague and lack sufficient safeguards against potential abuse. This creates a chilling effect on freedom of expression and assembly, as individuals and groups may self-censor their activities to avoid being targeted under the law.
Impact on Freedom of Expression and Dissent:
The ATA has had a significant chilling effect on freedom of expression and dissent in the Philippines. Journalists, activists, and human rights defenders have reported increased self-censorship and a climate of fear, as they worry about being targeted under the law for their critical reporting or advocacy work. This has led to a decline in critical reporting on government policies and a narrowing of public discourse. The fear of being labeled a terrorist has stifled legitimate dissent and limited the ability of civil society to hold the government accountable. The ATA has faced numerous legal challenges since its passage. Several petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court of the Philippines, arguing that the law is unconstitutional due to its vague provisions, its potential for abuse, and its violation of fundamental human rights. While the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the law, it has also issued rulings clarifying certain provisions and emphasizing the need to protect fundamental rights.
The ATA has also drawn strong condemnation from international human rights organizations and international bodies. These organizations have expressed concerns about the law's potential for abuse and its impact on human rights in the Philippines. The international criticism underscores the global concern over the law's implications for democracy and the rule of law.
The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 remains a highly controversial piece of legislation with far-reaching consequences for Philippine democracy. While supporters argue that it is necessary for national security, critics maintain that it poses a significant threat to fundamental human rights and freedom of expression. The law's broad definition of terrorism, its potential for abuse, and its chilling effect on dissent have raised serious concerns about its impact on the rule of law and the ability of civil society to hold the government accountable. The legacy of the ATA will continue to be debated and analyzed for years to come, as its implications for Philippine society and its democratic institutions unfold. The ongoing legal challenges and international scrutiny underscore the need for continuous vigilance in protecting fundamental rights and ensuring that the law is not used to suppress dissent and undermine democratic principles.
The crackdown on dissent: Duterte's administration was accused of silencing dissent and targeting journalists, activists, and opposition politicians.''
The six-year presidency of Rodrigo Duterte (2016-2022) was marked by a significant crackdown on dissent, leading to accusations of silencing critics and targeting journalists, activists, and opposition politicians. This systematic suppression of opposing voices significantly impacted the Philippine democratic landscape, raising serious concerns about freedom of expression, press freedom, and the rule of law. This article examines the various methods employed to suppress dissent, the impact on civil society, and the enduring legacy of this repressive approach.
The Duterte administration employed a range of tactics to silence dissent and suppress critical voices. These tactics included:
Red-tagging: This practice involved labeling critics of the government as communists, terrorists, or enemies of the state. This tactic was used to discredit opponents, incite violence against them, and justify their persecution. Red-tagging often led to harassment, intimidation, and even violence against individuals and organizations.
Online harassment and disinformation campaigns: The administration and its supporters utilized social media platforms to spread disinformation, harass critics, and discredit opposing viewpoints. Online trolls and bot networks were employed to flood social media with pro-government messages and attack critics, creating a hostile environment for dissent.
Legal harassment and politically motivated prosecutions: Critics of the government were often subjected to legal harassment, with politically motivated charges filed against them to stifle their activism and silence their voices. These charges were frequently based on vague or overly broad laws, making it difficult for those accused to defend themselves.
Intimidation and threats of violence: Journalists, activists, and opposition politicians faced intimidation and threats of violence, often from unidentified individuals or groups linked to the government. This created a climate of fear, discouraging individuals from speaking out against the administration.
Attacks on media outlets: Several media outlets critical of the Duterte administration were targeted, facing closure, harassment, or threats. This created a chilling effect on press freedom, limiting the ability of journalists to report on sensitive issues and hold the government accountable.
Impact on Civil Society:
The crackdown on dissent under Duterte had a significant impact on Philippine civil society. Many organizations faced increased scrutiny, harassment, and intimidation, leading to a decline in activism and a shrinking of the space for civil society to operate. The fear of reprisal discouraged individuals from engaging in political activism, limiting the ability of civil society to hold the government accountable and advocate for social change.
Erosion of Press Freedom:
The Duterte administration's attacks on journalists and media outlets led to a significant erosion of press freedom in the Philippines. Journalists faced threats, harassment, and even violence, creating a climate of self-censorship and fear. This limited the ability of journalists to report on sensitive issues and hold the government accountable, undermining the crucial role of the media in a democratic society.
Long-Term Consequences:
The crackdown on dissent under Duterte has had long-term consequences for Philippine democracy. The climate of fear and intimidation created during his administration continues to impact freedom of expression, press freedom, and the ability of civil society to operate effectively. The legacy of this repressive approach will require sustained efforts to strengthen democratic institutions, protect human rights, and promote a culture of accountability.
The Duterte administration's crackdown on dissent represents a serious assault on Philippine democracy. The systematic targeting of journalists, activists, and opposition politicians, coupled with the use of intimidation, legal harassment, and disinformation campaigns, created a climate of fear that stifled dissent and undermined the rule of law. The long-term consequences of this repressive approach will require sustained efforts to restore freedom of expression, protect human rights, and strengthen democratic institutions in the Philippines. The legacy of this period serves as a stark reminder of the fragility of democracy and the importance of defending fundamental rights and freedoms.
The handling of the COVID-19 pandemic: Duterte's government faced criticism for its slow response to the pandemic and its handling of the public health crisis.
The handling of the COVID-19 pandemic under the Rodrigo Duterte administration (2016-2022) remains a subject of intense scrutiny and debate in the Philippines. While the government implemented various measures to combat the virus, its response was widely criticized for its slow initial reaction, inconsistencies in policy implementation, and a lack of transparency and accountability. This article examines the key aspects of the Duterte administration's pandemic response, highlighting both its successes and its significant shortcomings.
A Slow and Uncertain Start:
The early stages of the pandemic response were marked by a slow and uncertain approach. While the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) in January 2020, the Philippines' initial response was relatively muted. Early measures to contain the virus were inconsistent and lacked a clear national strategy. This slow initial response allowed the virus to spread more rapidly than it might have otherwise, leading to a surge in cases and overwhelming the healthcare system.
Inconsistencies in Policy Implementation:
Throughout the pandemic, the government implemented a series of lockdowns, quarantine measures, and other restrictions. However, the implementation of these policies was often inconsistent, leading to confusion and frustration among the public. Different regions and localities implemented different rules, making it difficult for citizens to navigate the restrictions and understand their obligations. The frequent changes in policy also undermined public trust and made it difficult for individuals and businesses to plan ahead.
Lack of Transparency and Accountability:
The Duterte administration's handling of the pandemic was also criticized for a lack of transparency and accountability. Information about the number of cases, deaths, and the government's response was often slow to emerge, making it difficult for the public to understand the severity of the situation and the effectiveness of the government's measures. The procurement of medical supplies and equipment was also shrouded in secrecy, leading to allegations of corruption and mismanagement of public funds. This lack of transparency fueled public distrust and hampered efforts to build consensus and cooperation in combating the pandemic.
Economic Impact and Social Disruptions:
The pandemic's economic impact on the Philippines was severe, exacerbated by the government's inconsistent response. Lockdowns and restrictions led to widespread job losses, business closures, and a sharp decline in economic activity. The government's social amelioration programs, designed to provide financial assistance to those affected by the pandemic, were often criticized for their inefficiencies and limited reach. The pandemic also highlighted and exacerbated existing social inequalities, with marginalized communities disproportionately affected by the virus and the economic fallout.
Vaccine Rollout Challenges:
The vaccine rollout was another area where the Duterte administration faced significant criticism. The initial procurement and distribution of vaccines were slow, hampered by logistical challenges and bureaucratic hurdles. The government's communication strategy regarding the vaccines was also criticized for its inconsistencies and lack of clarity, leading to vaccine hesitancy among some segments of the population. The slow rollout and vaccine hesitancy contributed to the continued spread of the virus and the prolonged duration of the pandemic in the Philippines.
Lingering Questions and Lessons Learned:
The Duterte administration's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic raises many questions about its preparedness, its capacity to manage a public health crisis, and its commitment to transparency and accountability. The pandemic exposed weaknesses in the country's healthcare system, its capacity for rapid response, and its ability to effectively communicate with the public during a crisis. The experience offers valuable lessons for future pandemic preparedness and highlights the importance of strong public health infrastructure, effective communication strategies, and a commitment to transparency and accountability in government.
The Duterte administration's response to the COVID-19 pandemic was a mixed bag, characterized by both successes and significant failures. While the government implemented various measures to combat the virus, its slow initial response, inconsistent policy implementation, and lack of transparency and accountability hampered its effectiveness. The pandemic's economic and social consequences were severe, exacerbated by the government's shortcomings. The experience underscores the need for improved pandemic preparedness, strengthened public health infrastructure, and a commitment to transparency and accountability in government. The long-term consequences of the administration's handling of the pandemic will continue to be felt in the Philippines for years to come.
Duterte's Legacy:
Rodrigo Duterte's legacy is a complex and contested one. His supporters argue that he was a decisive leader who restored order and security to the Philippines, particularly in the fight against drugs and crime. They also point to his economic achievements, including the country's economic growth during his presidency.
However, his critics argue that his legacy is one of violence, human rights abuses, and a weakening of democratic institutions. They point to the thousands of extrajudicial killings, the crackdown on dissent, and the erosion of press freedom under his administration.
Duterte's presidency has left a lasting impact on the Philippines, and his legacy will continue to be debated for years to come. The "war on drugs" and his foreign policy towards China remain particularly controversial, and their long-term consequences are yet to be fully understood.
Marcos's Counter-Narrative:
In direct contrast to Duterte's approach, Marcos has adopted a more assertive stance against China, particularly concerning the West Philippine Sea. He has emphasized the importance of upholding the country's sovereign rights and has taken steps to strengthen alliances with traditional partners. While he has promised a "bloodless" drug war, human rights organizations continue to express concerns regarding the ongoing violence and lack of accountability. Significantly, Marcos has banned POGO operations in the Philippines, addressing the concerns surrounding human rights abuses and criminal activities associated with these businesses.
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.'s administration has embarked on a course charting a distinct path from that of his predecessor, Rodrigo Duterte, particularly concerning foreign policy towards China and the handling of domestic issues such as the drug war and the proliferation of Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs). While Duterte prioritized cultivating closer ties with China, even at the expense of asserting the Philippines' sovereign rights in the West Philippine Sea, Marcos has adopted a more assertive stance, seeking to strengthen traditional alliances and uphold the nation's territorial integrity. However, this shift in approach has not been without its challenges and criticisms.
A More Assertive Stance on the West Philippine Sea:
One of the most significant departures from Duterte's policy lies in Marcos's approach to the ongoing dispute in the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea). While Duterte largely refrained from fully utilizing the 2016 Arbitral Award, which affirmed the Philippines' sovereign rights over a significant portion of the disputed waters, Marcos has adopted a more assertive stance. He has repeatedly emphasized the importance of upholding the country's sovereign rights and has taken steps to strengthen alliances with traditional partners, particularly the United States, to bolster the Philippines' capacity to protect its maritime interests.
This shift in approach has been evident in increased joint military exercises with the US, enhanced diplomatic efforts to rally international support for the Philippines' claims, and a more vocal condemnation of China's assertive actions in the region. This more assertive posture signals a willingness to challenge China's claims and protect the Philippines' territorial integrity, a marked contrast to Duterte's policy of appeasement.
The "Bloodless" Drug War: A Promise Unfulfilled?
Domestically, Marcos has pledged to pursue a "bloodless" drug war, a stark contrast to the brutal and violent campaign waged under Duterte. While Marcos has emphasized a focus on rehabilitation and community-based interventions, human rights organizations continue to express concerns regarding the ongoing violence and lack of accountability. Reports of killings and human rights abuses persist, raising questions about the effectiveness and ethical implications of the current approach. The absence of a clear and comprehensive strategy to address the drug problem, coupled with persistent reports of violence, casts a shadow on the administration's commitment to a truly "bloodless" approach.
Addressing the POGO Problem:
Another key area where Marcos has diverged from Duterte's policies is in the handling of POGO operations in the Philippines. Duterte's administration initially embraced POGOs as a source of revenue, but these operations became associated with widespread concerns about human rights abuses, money laundering, and criminal activities. In contrast, Marcos has taken decisive action to curb the growth of POGOs, banning new licenses and imposing stricter regulations on existing operators. This move reflects a commitment to addressing the social and economic problems associated with the industry, while also prioritizing the protection of human rights and the prevention of criminal activity.
Challenges and Criticisms:
Despite these apparent shifts in policy, Marcos's administration faces significant challenges and criticisms. The ongoing violence associated with the drug war raises questions about the government's commitment to human rights and its capacity to effectively address the issue. The assertive stance on the West Philippine Sea, while welcomed by many, carries inherent risks and necessitates a delicate balancing act in navigating relations with China. The ban on POGOs, while addressing concerns about human rights and crime, has also raised concerns about the potential economic consequences, particularly the impact on employment and revenue generation.
Marcos's counter-narrative to Duterte's legacy is still unfolding. While his administration has adopted a more assertive foreign policy stance and taken steps to address some of the most pressing domestic concerns, significant challenges remain. The long-term success of these policy shifts will depend on the government's ability to effectively implement its initiatives, uphold human rights, and navigate the complex geopolitical landscape of the region. The coming years will be crucial in determining whether Marcos's approach represents a genuine and sustainable departure from the past or merely a superficial shift in rhetoric. The ongoing scrutiny from human rights organizations and the international community will play a critical role in shaping the narrative and holding the administration accountable for its actions.
A Referendum on Governance:
By highlighting these key differences, Marcos effectively framed the 2025 elections as a choice between two distinct visions for the Philippines. He directly challenged the electorate to consider the consequences of a return to Duterte-era policies, stating, "Walang nagnanais na Pilipino na mabalik tayo sa ganyang klaseng pagpatakbo" (No Filipino wants to return to that kind of governance). This statement encapsulates the central theme of his campaign message: a clear break from the past and a commitment to a different path for the nation.
Political Implications and Analysis:
Marcos's strategic shift in campaign messaging reflects a calculated attempt to solidify his political standing and secure the support of voters who may have reservations about Duterte's legacy. By contrasting his administration's policies with those of his predecessor, he aims to present himself as a reformer committed to addressing the shortcomings of the previous regime. However, this approach also carries significant risks. Directly confronting Duterte's legacy could alienate a segment of the population that remains supportive of the former president. The success of this strategy will depend on Marcos's ability to effectively communicate his vision for the future while simultaneously addressing the concerns of a diverse electorate.
The 2025 elections are poised to be a crucial moment in Philippine political history. Marcos's decision to directly engage with Duterte's legacy sets the stage for a campaign marked by intense debate and scrutiny. The outcome will depend not only on the effectiveness of Marcos's campaign but also on the electorate's assessment of his administration's performance and their perception of the alternative path represented by the opposition. The coming months will be critical in shaping the political narrative and determining the future direction of the Philippines.
Marcos Draws Battle Lines Three Years In: 2025 Elections Become a Referendum on Duterte's Legacy
Manila, Philippines – February 20, 2024: President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.'s recent campaign rally marked a significant turning point in his administration's political strategy. Three years into his term, and amidst the ongoing impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte, Marcos adopted a far more confrontational tone, directly contrasting his administration's policies and values with those of his predecessor, Rodrigo Duterte, and his allies. The rally, ostensibly a proclamation event for his chosen senatorial candidates for the 2025 elections, transformed into a pointed critique of the Duterte era, highlighting the perceived failures and controversies of the previous administration.
The speech delivered by Marcos represented a notable departure from his typically conciliatory rhetoric. Known for his generally non-confrontational approach, the President's direct attacks on the Duterte administration and its key figures surprised many observers. This shift in tone is widely interpreted as a strategic move to solidify his political standing and define the upcoming 2025 elections as a referendum on the past six years.
The timing of Marcos's sharp critique is significant, coinciding with the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte, his former running mate and erstwhile ally. The impeachment process has created a considerable political upheaval, forcing Marcos to navigate a complex situation while maintaining his own political standing and securing the future of his administration's agenda. The President's direct engagement with the controversies surrounding the Duterte administration can be seen as an attempt to distance himself from the potential fallout of the impeachment proceedings and to solidify his own political base.
Marcos drew explicit comparisons between his senatorial candidates and those of their rivals, particularly focusing on the reelectionist candidates aligned with the Duterte administration. He leveled serious accusations against his opponents, alleging that their campaigns were tainted by the legacy of the Duterte era. The President's accusations included:
Allegations of involvement in extrajudicial killings: Marcos accused rival candidates of having "blood on their hands" due to their association with the controversial "Tokhang" anti-drug operations of the Duterte administration, which resulted in thousands of extrajudicial killings.
Accusations of corruption and abuse of power: He accused his opponents of engaging in corruption, enriching themselves during the pandemic, and neglecting the welfare of the Filipino people.
Criticism of pro-China stance: Marcos criticized those perceived as being overly accommodating to China, highlighting instances of harassment of Filipino fishermen and the encroachment on Philippine territories in the West Philippine Sea.
Allegations of association with controversial figures: He drew attention to the legal troubles of Apollo Quiboloy, a spiritual advisor to Duterte who is facing multiple charges of sexual abuse and human trafficking in the Philippines and the United States.
The 2025 elections are clearly shaping up to be a pivotal moment in Philippine politics. Marcos's decision to directly confront the legacy of the Duterte administration and to draw such sharp distinctions between his candidates and his rivals underscores the high stakes involved. His approach signals a clear attempt to define the political landscape, to position himself as a reformer committed to a different path for the Philippines, and to secure a mandate for his own vision of governance.
The coming months will be crucial in determining how the electorate responds to Marcos's confrontational campaign strategy. His direct attacks on the Duterte administration and his chosen rivals are likely to intensify the political discourse and shape the narrative leading up to the elections. The success of his strategy will depend on his ability to convince the electorate that his administration represents a clear and preferable alternative to the past, while also navigating the challenges of the ongoing political upheaval and the legacy of the Duterte era. The outcome of the 2025 elections will have profound implications for the future direction of the Philippines, shaping its domestic and foreign policies for years to come.
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.'s recent denouncement of the Duterte administration's policies, particularly the drug war, China policy, and Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs), marks a significant departure from the status quo that prevailed during Duterte's presidency. The President's newfound assertiveness in challenging the previous administration's legacy raises questions about the role of Congress in scrutinizing and opposing controversial policies, highlighting the political landscape that allowed Duterte's initiatives to unfold unchecked.
During Duterte's tenure, a notable lack of opposition from Congress allowed his policies to proceed with minimal resistance. The drug war, a central pillar of Duterte's agenda, unfolded largely unchecked, with only a small minority of opposition lawmakers openly challenging the administration's approach. The absence of robust debate and oversight in Congress meant that the drug war proceeded with little scrutiny, resulting in a significant loss of life. While government figures estimate the number of individuals killed in police operations at over 7,000, human rights groups suggest a much higher toll, with estimates reaching up to 30,000 when accounting for vigilante killings and extrajudicial executions.
Similarly, Duterte's China policy and the proliferation of Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs) faced minimal resistance in Congress. The administration's acquiescence to China's territorial ambitions in the West Philippine Sea went largely unchallenged, with few lawmakers raising concerns about the potential implications for Philippine sovereignty. The growth of POGOs, despite mounting allegations of human rights abuses and criminal activities, proceeded without significant pushback from Congress, highlighting a broader trend of deference to the Duterte administration's policies.
The sudden shift in Marcos' stance towards Duterte's policies, particularly his vocal criticism of the drug war and the administration's China policy, has caught many by surprise. Marcos' previous alignment with Duterte, evident in his desire to have the former president as his running mate in the 2022 elections, stands in stark contrast to his current confrontational approach. This rapid reversal raises questions about the dynamics of political alliances and the complexities of navigating the shifting landscape of Philippine politics.
The silence of Congress during Duterte's presidency raises critical questions about the role of lawmakers in providing oversight and accountability. The lack of robust opposition to controversial policies allowed Duterte's initiatives to proceed largely unchecked, with significant consequences for human rights, governance, and the rule of law. As Marcos embarks on a new chapter in Philippine politics, the role of Congress in challenging executive power and upholding democratic principles becomes increasingly paramount.
The evolving political landscape in the Philippines, marked by Marcos' departure from Duterte's legacy, underscores the complexities of governance and the shifting dynamics of alliances and opposition in the country. The challenges of accountability, oversight, and the protection of fundamental rights remain central to the future trajectory of Philippine democracy. As Marcos navigates this new political terrain, the role of Congress in shaping the nation's governance and ensuring transparency and accountability will be pivotal in defining the path forward.
As the Philippines gears up for the upcoming midterm elections, the political landscape has become increasingly charged with anticipation and speculation. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.'s administration faces a critical juncture, with the polls shaping up to be a referendum not just on his leadership but on the broader trajectory of Philippine politics. The dynamics of the campaign, the alliance formations, and the strategic maneuvers of key players all point to a closely contested and consequential electoral season.
Midterm elections are traditionally seen as a barometer of public sentiment towards the incumbent administration. For Marcos, the polls represent an opportunity to frame the narrative not as a referendum on his leadership but as a choice between the vision he offers for the future and the policies of his predecessors. By emphasizing the contrast between his administration and the Duterte era, Marcos seeks to position himself as a reformer and a proponent of change, distinguishing his agenda from that of his predecessors.
One of the key dynamics shaping the electoral landscape is the looming impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, a significant event that could have far-reaching implications for the administration coalition. The need for numbers in the Senate, particularly in the context of the impeachment trial, adds a sense of urgency to the electoral calculus, prompting both alliances to vie for supremacy and secure a favorable outcome in the Senate.
Marcos' Alyansa coalition has presented a formidable slate of candidates, with a strong showing in early preference polling. The completeness of the 12-member slate has been a point of pride for Marcos, who has taken jabs at rivals struggling to field a full lineup. The coalition's candidates, including Senator Imee Marcos, have garnered significant support in recent surveys, underlining the strength and cohesion of the administration's lineup.
Political power and the ability to mobilize support in key regions play a crucial role in shaping the narrative of the campaign. Marcos and the administration coalition have made a concerted effort to project unity and strength, holding proclamation rallies in strategic locations across the country. The campaign sorties, with stops in Iloilo City, Carmen in Davao del Norte, and Pasay City, underscore the importance of regional support and the ability to rally crowds in key electoral battlegrounds.
As the campaign season unfolds, the political landscape in the Philippines is set for a period of intense competition and strategic maneuvering. The upcoming midterm elections will not only test the popularity and viability of the administration coalition but also offer a glimpse into the shifting dynamics of Philippine politics. The ability to mobilize support, project unity, and articulate a compelling vision for the future will be crucial for all parties vying for power. The coming weeks will be critical in determining the outcome of the elections and shaping the future trajectory of Philippine governance.
-------
Understanding the Pulse of the Nation: What Recent Surveys Reveal About Voter Sentiment Ahead of the 2025 Elections
As the official campaign period for national elective offices kicks off, the political landscape in the Philippines is heating up. This week, two major surveys were released, offering a glimpse into the minds of Filipino voters. Conducted by Pulse Asia and Octa Research, these surveys provide critical insights into the preferences, concerns, and aspirations of the electorate. But beyond the numbers lies a deeper question: What are voters really thinking? And what do these surveys mean for the future of the country?
In a special episode of In The Public Square, Rappler columnist and editorial consultant John Nery sat down with the heads of these two leading pollsters to dissect the findings and explore their implications. Joining him were Dr. Ronald Holmes, president of Pulse Asia and a respected political scientist, and Dr. Ranjit Rye, president of Octa Research and another seasoned political analyst. Together, they unpacked the latest data and shared their perspectives on what it all means for the upcoming elections.
The Pulse Asia survey, conducted from January 18 to 25, 2025, surveyed 2,400 respondents nationwide. It focused on voter preferences for presidential, vice-presidential, senatorial, and local candidates. The results revealed a tight race at the top, with three leading presidential candidates statistically tied within the margin of error.
Dr. Holmes explained that the survey reflects a deeply divided electorate, with regional and socio-economic factors playing a significant role in shaping voter preferences. "What we're seeing is not just a national race but a series of regional battles," he said. "Candidates who can effectively address local concerns while maintaining a strong national presence are likely to gain an edge."
One of the most striking findings was the high percentage of undecided voters—nearly 20% of respondents said they were still unsure of their choice for president. Holmes noted that this indecision could be a game-changer in the final weeks of the campaign. "The undecided voters are the wildcard. They could swing the election in favor of any candidate who can effectively communicate their platform and connect with their concerns."
The Octa Research Survey: A Focus on Issues and Trust
Meanwhile, the Octa Research survey, conducted from January 25 to 31, 2025, took a slightly different approach. While it also measured voter preferences, it placed a stronger emphasis on the issues that matter most to Filipinos. According to Dr. Rye, the survey revealed that the economy, corruption, and healthcare remain the top concerns for voters.
"Filipinos are looking for leaders who can deliver tangible results," Rye said. "
The Octa survey also measured trust ratings for key political figures, providing a glimpse into the public's perception of their integrity and competence. Interestingly, while some candidates scored high in voter preference, their trust ratings were significantly lower. Rye pointed out that this disconnect could indicate a degree of skepticism among voters. "It's not enough to be popular; voters want leaders they can trust," he said. "Candidates need to address this trust deficit if they want to secure a solid mandate."
What Do the Surveys Tell Us About Voter Behavior?
Both surveys highlight a number of key trends that are shaping the 2025 elections. First, the electorate is highly issue-driven. Voters are not just choosing candidates based on personality or popularity; they are looking for leaders who can address their most pressing concerns. This shift towards issue-based voting represents a maturation of the Filipino electorate, according to both Holmes and Rye.
Second, regionalism continues to play a significant role in Philippine politics. Candidates with strong regional bases are likely to perform well, but they will need to broaden their appeal to win nationally. "The challenge for candidates is to balance their local roots with a compelling national vision," Holmes said.
Finally, the high percentage of undecided voters underscores the fluidity of the race. With weeks to go before election day, there is still plenty of room for movement in the polls. Candidates who can effectively campaign and connect with voters—particularly in key battleground regions—could see a significant boost in their numbers.
Both Holmes and Rye also touched on the growing influence of social media and the spread of disinformation in shaping voter behavior. "Social media has become a double-edged sword," Rye said. "On one hand, it allows candidates to reach a wider audience and engage directly with voters. On the other hand, it has also become a breeding ground for fake news and misinformation."
Holmes echoed this sentiment, noting that the spread of disinformation could undermine the integrity of the electoral process. "Voters need to be vigilant and critical of the information they consume," he said. "It's important to verify facts and rely on credible sources."
What’s Next for the Campaign?
As the campaign period officially begins, candidates will be ramping up their efforts to win over voters. Both Holmes and Rye emphasized the importance of clear messaging and grassroots engagement. "Candidates need to go beyond slogans and soundbites," Rye said. "They need to present a coherent vision for the country and demonstrate how they plan to achieve it."
Holmes added that candidates should also focus on building coalitions and alliances. "In a fragmented political landscape, no candidate can win alone. Building broad-based support will be crucial.
Tune In to In The Public Square
For a deeper dive into the survey results and their implications, don’t miss the special episode of In The Public Square featuring Dr. Ronald Holmes and Dr. Ranjit Rye. The episode will air on Wednesday, February 12, at 8 pm on Rappler’s YouTube channel and Facebook page. Join John Nery and his guests as they explore the numbers, analyze the trends, and discuss what it all means for the future of the Philippines.
As the 2025 elections approach, one thing is clear: the Filipino electorate is engaged, informed, and ready to make their voices heard. The question now is, which candidates will rise to the occasion and earn their trust? Only time will tell.
--------
NBI Files Inciting to Sedition, Grave Threat Complaints Against Vice President Sara Duterte Over Alleged Assassination Plot Remarks
In a dramatic escalation of political tensions in the Philippines, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) has filed criminal complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte for inciting to sedition and grave threats. The charges stem from her controversial statement alleging that she had arranged to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and House Speaker Martin Romualdez if she were killed first. The complaints were formally lodged before the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Wednesday, February 12, marking a significant development in the ongoing political rift between the Duterte and Marcos camps.
The DOJ confirmed the filing in a statement released Wednesday, stating, “With the filing of the complaint, the case will now undergo evaluation and preliminary investigation before the National Prosecution Service.” This move by the NBI has sent shockwaves through the political landscape, raising questions about the implications for governance, national unity, and the rule of law.
The Allegations: A Shocking Revelation
The controversy began when Vice President Duterte, during a private meeting with political allies, allegedly made the incendiary remarks about orchestrating the assassinations of President Marcos, the First Lady, and Speaker Romualdez. The statement, which was leaked to the media, quickly went viral, sparking outrage and condemnation from various sectors.
According to sources familiar with the matter, Duterte’s remarks were made in the context of escalating political tensions between her family and the Marcos administration. The Vice President reportedly framed her statement as a hypothetical scenario, emphasizing that it was a response to perceived threats against her own life. However, the NBI deemed her comments as crossing the line into criminal conduct, prompting the filing of formal complaints.
The Legal Basis: Inciting to Sedition and Grave Threats
The NBI’s complaints are based on two key provisions of the Revised Penal Code: inciting to sedition and grave threats.
Inciting to Sedition (Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code): This provision penalizes any person who incites others to commit acts of rebellion or sedition against the government. The NBI argues that Duterte’s remarks, particularly her alleged plan to assassinate the President and other high-ranking officials, could be interpreted as an attempt to incite violence or destabilize the government.
Grave Threats (Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code): This provision criminalizes threats to commit a wrong that would constitute a crime, particularly if the threat causes reasonable fear in the victim. The NBI contends that Duterte’s statements created a credible threat to the safety and security of President Marcos, the First Lady, and Speaker Romualdez.
Legal experts are divided on the merits of the case. Some argue that Duterte’s remarks, while inflammatory, may not meet the legal threshold for inciting to sedition or grave threats, especially if they were made in a private setting and framed as hypothetical. Others, however, believe that the gravity of her statements, given her position as Vice President, warrants a thorough investigation.
Duterte’s Response: “As Expected”
In response to the NBI’s move, Vice President Duterte issued a brief but pointed statement: “As expected.” This terse reply underscores her belief that the charges are politically motivated and part of a broader effort to undermine her and her family’s influence. Earlier, Duterte had expressed skepticism about receiving fair treatment from the NBI, accusing the agency of bias in favor of the Marcos administration.
Duterte’s allies have rallied to her defense, framing the complaints as an attempt to silence dissent and intimidate political opponents. “This is clearly a witch hunt,” said one Duterte supporter. “The Vice President’s remarks were taken out of context and are being used to discredit her.”
The filing of criminal complaints against the Vice President marks a new low in the already strained relationship between the Duterte and Marcos factions. The two families, once political allies, have seen their alliance unravel over policy disagreements, personal grievances, and competing ambitions.
The rift became public last year when President Marcos and Vice President Duterte clashed over key issues, including the handling of the West Philippine Sea dispute and the administration’s economic policies. The situation worsened when Duterte resigned from her concurrent post as Secretary of Education, citing irreconcilable differences with the administration.
The latest development is likely to further polarize the political landscape, with both sides digging in their heels.
Public Reaction: Divided Opinions
The public reaction to the NBI’s complaints has been mixed. Supporters of the Marcos administration have applauded the move, arguing that no one, regardless of their position, should be above the law. “The Vice President’s remarks were reckless and dangerous,” said one Marcos supporter. “She must be held accountable for her actions.”
On the other hand, Duterte’s supporters view the complaints as an overreach and an abuse of power. “This is nothing but political persecution,” said a Duterte loyalist. “The administration is using the NBI to target its critics.”
Meanwhile, civil society groups have called for calm and restraint, urging both sides to prioritize the national interest over political vendettas. “This situation is deeply concerning,” said a representative from a human rights organization. “We urge all parties to resolve their differences through dialogue and legal means, rather than escalating the conflict.”
With the complaints now filed, the case will undergo a preliminary investigation by the National Prosecution Service (NPS). During this phase, prosecutors will evaluate the evidence and determine whether there is sufficient grounds to file formal charges in court.
If the NPS finds probable cause, the case could proceed to trial, potentially leading to criminal charges against the Vice President. However, legal experts note that the process could take months, if not years, given the complexity and sensitivity of the case.
In the meantime, the political fallout from the controversy is likely to dominate the national conversation, shaping public opinion and influencing the dynamics of the 2025 elections. The case also raises broader questions about the role of the judiciary and law enforcement in addressing politically charged disputes.
A Test for Philippine Democracy
The filing of criminal complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte represents a critical test for Philippine democracy. It highlights the challenges of maintaining the rule of law in a highly polarized political environment and underscores the need for institutions to remain impartial and independent.
As the case unfolds, all eyes will be on the Department of Justice, the judiciary, and the political actors involved. The outcome of this controversy will have far-reaching implications for governance, accountability, and the future of Philippine politics.
For now, the nation waits and watches, hoping that the principles of justice and democracy will prevail in these turbulent times.
In a development that has sent ripples through the Philippine political landscape, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) has launched a comprehensive investigation into Vice President Sara Duterte over allegations of grave threats, potential violations of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175), and possible breaches of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (Republic Act No. 11479).
The NBI’s investigation, which has now culminated in the filing of criminal complaints, marks a significant escalation in the ongoing political tensions between the Duterte and Marcos factions. The Department of Justice (DOJ) confirmed the development on Wednesday, February 12, and outlined the legal framework underpinning the case.
The Controversial Statement: A Midnight Press Conference
The controversy began during a late-night virtual press conference on November 23, 2024, where Vice President Duterte addressed her supporters. In response to concerns about her safety, Duterte reportedly stated that she had “talked to someone” to ensure that if she were killed, that person would assassinate three high-profile personalities: President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and House Speaker Martin Romualdez. She emphasized at the time that her remarks were not made in jest, though she later categorically denied making any such threat.
The statement, which was widely circulated on social media and traditional news outlets, sparked immediate outrage and condemnation. Critics accused Duterte of inciting violence and undermining the rule of law, while her supporters argued that her remarks were taken out of context and misrepresented.
The Legal Framework: Grave Threats, Cybercrime, and Anti-Terrorism
The NBI’s investigation focused on three potential legal violations:
Grave Threats under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code: This provision criminalizes threats to commit a wrong that would constitute a crime, particularly if the threat causes reasonable fear in the victim. The DOJ, in its statement, clarified that “the crime of grave threats penalizes statements that create real and imminent danger to specific persons, regardless of whether actual harm occurs.”
Section 6 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175): This section penalizes the use of information and communications technology to commit crimes, including threats and libel. The NBI is investigating whether Duterte’s virtual press conference, which was broadcast online, falls under this provision.
Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (RA 11479): The NBI is also examining whether Duterte’s remarks could be construed as inciting terrorism or violence, which is punishable under the controversial anti-terror law. This aspect of the investigation is particularly sensitive, given the broad and often criticized provisions of the law.
The NBI’s Investigation: Subpoenas and Counteraffidavits
As part of its probe, the NBI issued a subpoena to Vice President Duterte, requiring her to appear before the agency to provide her side of the story. However, Duterte opted not to appear in person, following advice from her legal team. Instead, her lawyer informed the NBI that she would submit a counteraffidavit to address the allegations.
The NBI’s recommendation to file criminal complaints is now in the hands of the DOJ, which will determine whether to proceed with a preliminary investigation. The DOJ has the discretion to either initiate hearings or dismiss the case outright. If the DOJ decides to move forward, it will issue subpoenas for Duterte’s defense, requiring her to submit a sworn counteraffidavit.
The DOJ’s Role: Preliminary Investigation and Probable Cause
The DOJ’s National Prosecution Service (NPS) will now take over the case, conducting a preliminary investigation to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to file formal charges. This process involves evaluating the NBI’s findings, reviewing Duterte’s counteraffidavit, and assessing whether probable cause exists.
If the DOJ finds probable cause, it will file charges in court, and Duterte will be formally charged. However, if the DOJ determines that the evidence is insufficient, the case will be dismissed. Legal experts note that the DOJ’s decision will hinge on whether Duterte’s remarks meet the legal thresholds for grave threats, cybercrime, and anti-terrorism violations.
Duterte’s Defense: Context and Denial
Vice President Duterte has maintained that her remarks were misinterpreted and taken out of context. In her counteraffidavit, she is expected to argue that her statement was not a genuine threat but rather a hypothetical scenario meant to reassure her supporters about her safety. Her legal team is likely to emphasize that her remarks did not create a real and imminent danger, as required under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code.
Duterte’s allies have also rallied to her defense, accusing the NBI and the DOJ of political bias.
Political Implications: A Deepening Divide
The NBI’s investigation and the subsequent filing of criminal complaints have further deepened the political divide between the Duterte and Marcos factions. The two families, once close allies, have seen their relationship deteriorate over policy disagreements, personal grievances, and competing ambitions.
The controversy has also raised concerns about the potential impact on governance and national unity. Analysts warn that the escalating conflict could distract from pressing national issues, such as economic recovery, inflation, and security challenges. “This situation is deeply concerning,” said a political analyst. “It undermines public trust in institutions and exacerbates political polarization.”
The public reaction to the NBI’s investigation has been mixed. Supporters of the Marcos administration have welcomed the move, arguing that no one, regardless of their position, should be above the law. “The Vice President’s remarks were reckless and dangerous,” said one Marcos supporter. “She must be held accountable for her actions.”
On the other hand, Duterte’s supporters view the investigation as an overreach and an abuse of power. “This is nothing but political persecution,” said a Duterte loyalist. “The administration is using the NBI to target its critics.”
Civil society groups have called for calm and restraint, urging both sides to prioritize the national interest over political vendettas. “This situation is deeply concerning,” said a representative from a human rights organization. “We urge all parties to resolve their differences through dialogue and legal means, rather than escalating the conflict.”
As the case moves to the DOJ for preliminary investigation, all eyes will be on the legal and political maneuvers of both sides. The outcome of the investigation could have far-reaching implications for Philippine politics, governance, and the rule of law.
For Vice President Duterte, the case represents a significant challenge to her political career and legacy. For the Marcos administration, it is a test of its commitment to justice and accountability. And for the Filipino people, it is a reminder of the fragility of democracy and the importance of upholding the rule of law.
Vice President Sara Duterte’s Shocking Statement: “If I Get Killed, So Will Marcos, Liza Araneta, Romualdez”
By [Your Name], Senior Political Correspondent
In a stunning and unprecedented move, Vice President Sara Duterte issued a chilling warning during a virtual press conference in the early hours of Saturday, November 23, 2024. Addressing her supporters via Zoom, Duterte declared that she had arranged for the assassination of President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and House Speaker Martin Romualdez in the event of her own death. The statement, which she emphasized was “no joke,” has ignited a firestorm of controversy, raising serious legal, political, and ethical questions.
The remarks were made during a live-streamed press conference organized by Diehard Duterte Supporters (DDS), a group of loyalists to the Duterte family. Responding to a question from a DDS vlogger about her stance on corruption, criminality, and calls for people power, Duterte veered into unexpected territory, delivering a message that has since dominated national headlines.
The Statement: A Chilling Warning
In her own words, Duterte said:
“‘Wag kang mag-alala sa security ko kasi may kinausap na ako na tao. Sinabi ko sa kanya, ‘pag pinatay ako, patayin mo si BBM, si Liza Araneta, at si Martin Romualdez. No joke. No joke.”
(Don’t worry about my security because I’ve already talked to someone. I told him, if I get killed, kill BBM, Liza Araneta, and Martin Romualdez. No joke. No joke.)
She added:
“Nagbilin na ako, Ma’am. ‘Pag namatay ako, ‘wag ka tumigil hanggang hindi mo mapapatay sila. And then he said yes.”
(I’ve already given instructions, Ma’am. If I die, don’t stop until you’ve killed them. And then he said yes.)
Duterte did not name the individual she allegedly instructed to carry out the assassinations, nor did she provide further details about the arrangement. However, her tone and the specificity of her remarks left little room for ambiguity, sparking immediate backlash and condemnation.
The Context: Escalating Political Tensions
Duterte’s statement comes amid escalating tensions between her family and the Marcos administration. Once political allies, the Dutertes and the Marcoses have seen their relationship deteriorate over the past year, with public disagreements on key issues such as the West Philippine Sea dispute, economic policies, and governance priorities.
The Vice President’s resignation from her concurrent post as Secretary of Education in October 2024 further highlighted the rift. At the time, Duterte cited “irreconcilable differences” with the administration, though she stopped short of providing specific details. Her latest remarks, however, suggest a deepening animosity that has now spilled into the public domain.
Legal Implications: Grave Threats and Beyond
Legal experts were quick to weigh in on the potential implications of Duterte’s statement. Under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of grave threats is defined as a threat to commit a wrong that would constitute a crime, particularly if it causes reasonable fear in the victim. Duterte’s remarks, which directly named President Marcos, the First Lady, and Speaker Romualdez, could be interpreted as meeting this legal threshold.
Additionally, her use of a virtual platform to deliver the statement raises questions about potential violations of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175), which penalizes the use of information and communications technology to commit crimes, including threats. Some legal analysts have also suggested that her remarks could be scrutinized under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (Republic Act No. 11479), which criminalizes incitement to violence or terrorism.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has yet to issue an official statement on whether it will pursue charges against Duterte. However, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) is reportedly reviewing the matter to determine if a formal investigation is warranted.
Political Fallout: A Nation Divided
Duterte’s statement has sent shockwaves through the political landscape, drawing sharp reactions from both supporters and critics. Supporters of the Marcos administration have condemned her remarks as reckless and dangerous, calling for accountability. “This is not just a threat to the President and his family; it’s a threat to the stability of our nation,” said one Marcos loyalist. “She must be held accountable for her actions.”
On the other hand, Duterte’s allies have defended her, arguing that her remarks were taken out of context and misrepresented. “The Vice President was simply expressing her frustration with the current administration,” said a Duterte supporter. “She has every right to defend herself and her family.”
Civil society groups have called for calm and restraint, urging all parties to prioritize the national interest over political vendettas. “This situation is deeply concerning,” said a representative from a human rights organization. “We urge all parties to resolve their differences through dialogue and legal means, rather than escalating the conflict.”
Public Reaction: Outrage and Concern
The public reaction to Duterte’s statement has been mixed, reflecting the deep political divisions in the country. Many Filipinos expressed outrage, describing her remarks as irresponsible and unbecoming of a public official. “How can someone in such a high position make such a statement?” asked one social media user. “This is not the kind of leadership we need.”
Others, however, expressed sympathy for Duterte, viewing her remarks as a reflection of the intense pressure and threats she faces. “The Vice President is clearly under a lot of stress,” said another netizen. “We should give her the benefit of the doubt.”
Duterte's Death Threat to Marcoses Sparks Security Concerns and Political Tensions
A chilling death threat issued by former President Rodrigo Duterte against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos has sent shockwaves through the nation, escalating political tensions and raising serious security concerns. The threat, revealed during an unauthorized press conference by Duterte's chief of staff, Zuleika Lopez, from her House detention cell, has prompted swift action from Malacañang and sparked a flurry of political reactions.
The Threat and Malacañang's Response:
The gravity of the situation became apparent when details of Duterte's threat emerged. According to Lopez, Duterte had made arrangements for his own security, stating, "(I’ve already made arrangements, Ma’am. If I die, don’t stop until you kill them.)" This statement, interpreted as a direct threat against the Marcoses, prompted an immediate response from Malacañang. On Saturday, the Palace announced that the Executive Secretary had referred the threat to the Presidential Security Command for immediate action, underscoring the seriousness with which the threat is being taken.
The timing of Duterte's threat is particularly significant, coinciding with the ongoing impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte, daughter of the former president. The threat can be interpreted within the context of the broader political tensions and power struggles playing out in the current political landscape. The close proximity of the threat to the impeachment proceedings suggests a possible link between the two events, raising questions about the motivations behind Duterte's actions.
**Lopez's Detention and Medical Emergency:**
The unauthorized press conference was initially intended to be conducted solely by Lopez, Duterte's chief of staff, who was detained in a House facility. However, Lopez reportedly suffered an anxiety attack, prompting Duterte to take over and deliver the statement containing the death threat. Lopez was subsequently transferred to the Veterans Memorial Medical Center and later to St. Luke's Medical Center in Quezon City before being returned to the VMMC, highlighting the stressful circumstances surrounding the event.
**Duterte's Accusations Against Romualdez:
Adding further fuel to the fire, Duterte, in a separate virtual press conference on Thursday, accused House Speaker Martin Romualdez of being the only person who wants him dead. This accusation, made amidst the ongoing political tensions and the controversy surrounding Lopez's detention, further underscores the charged atmosphere and the intense power struggles at play.
Duterte's death threat has triggered a wave of political reactions and raised serious concerns about national security. The threat against the President and First Lady is unprecedented and has the potential to destabilize the political order. The swift response from Malacañang, the transfer of Lopez, and the ongoing investigations highlight the gravity of the situation and the government's determination to address the threat effectively.
The death threat issued by former President Duterte against President Marcos Jr. and First Lady Araneta-Marcos represents an unprecedented crisis in Philippine politics. The threat's timing, its context within the ongoing impeachment proceedings, and the subsequent events surrounding Lopez's detention and Duterte's accusations have created a highly volatile and uncertain situation. The government's response, while swift, will need to be comprehensive and effective in addressing the security concerns and mitigating the potential for further escalation. The coming days and weeks will be critical in determining how this crisis unfolds and its impact on the political landscape of the Philippines. The incident underscores the fragility of political stability and the importance of maintaining a climate of respect and adherence to the rule of law in a democratic society.