Tiangco’s political collapse and failed speakership bid

Navotas Rep. Toby Tiangco’s ambitious plan to seize the House speakership has spectacularly imploded, revealing the stark limits of his political influence. His strategy, predicated on exploiting perceived public discontent over Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment and framing it as a strategic blunder by Speaker Martin Romualdez, ultimately backfired.

The seeds of Tiangco’s dissent were sown immediately following the May 12 midterm elections, where his senatorial slate, Alyansa Para sa Bagong Pilipinas, secured a disappointing 5 out of 12 Senate seats. Instead of taking responsibility for this electoral setback, Tiangco swiftly shifted blame, attributing the losses to what he termed a “leadership miscalculation” – the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Duterte.

He alleged that the impeachment directly contributed to the Alyansa candidates’ significant losses in the Bangsamoro region, a traditionally strong base for the administration. However, this narrative conveniently ignored Tiangco’s own role as campaign manager, where he controlled both messaging and strategy. Political observers and even some Alyansa senatorial candidates pointed to his misjudgment, particularly the assumption that Mindanao’s loyalty could be taken for granted, despite the enduring popularity of the Duterte brand. 

Former Leni Robredo’s spokesman Atty. Barry Gutierrez called out Tiangco on his “impeachment excuses” saying “as campaign manager for the administration slate, the disastrous midterm results are clearly on his account”. Retiring Surigao del Norte 2nd district congressman Ace Barbers called Tiangco’s declarations are both misleading and detached from reality. 

However, Tiangco’s behind-the-scenes efforts to position himself as Romualdez’s replacement gained minimal traction. Sources within the ruling coalition revealed that his claim – that the Speaker’s handling of the Duterte impeachment weakened the coalition – failed to resonate. Crucially, the impeachment process was a collective decision, involving debate and votes from numerous lawmakers who believed in their constitutional duty. Tiangco’s attempt to portray them as mere puppets insulted their intelligence and independence.

Adding fuel to the fire, Tiangco accused his colleagues of succumbing to pressure to sign the impeachment complaint, alleging that district fund releases were contingent upon their signatures. However, it was later revealed, through his own admissions in interviews, that Tiangco himself had blocked the release of crucial district project funds during the election period. This revelation exposed a significant contradiction: while accusing others of coercion, he effectively wielded financial leverage against his own colleagues.

Consequently, hundreds of congressmen, including those from Mindanao, were deprived of funds that could have aided their reelection bids. Furthermore, signatories of the impeachment complaint faced the loss of Iglesia ni Cristo support. Despite these challenges, nearly 9 out of 10 reelectionist congressmen, including those from Mindanao, emerged victorious.

After the congressional winners emerged, Tiangco’s overplayed hand became evident. His whispered campaign for the speakership rapidly unraveled but key Congress bloc leaders reaffirmed their allegiance to Romualdez, citing his instrumental role in passing critical legislation, and securing vital infrastructure and financial packages for their districts.

In essence, Tiangco’s speakership bid was a long shot from its inception. Having alienated his colleagues by withholding district funds, he could hardly expect their support for his speakership aspirations or any leadership role in the House for that matter. 

Now politically isolated, Tiangco is left to grapple with the fallout of his failed power grab, facing a fractured senatorial slate and a stillborn speakership bid. Even his closest allies concede that his ambitions are, at least for the foreseeable future, defunct. In a House governed by numbers, not narratives, Tiangco’s miscalculation may prove to be his most enduring political blunder.

Miru’s flawed beginnings to fateful failures: people’s trust eroded

As dusk settled on May 12, Filipinos expected closure—an affirmation that their votes had been accurately recorded and transparently counted. Instead, what we received was a tidal wave of doubt, confusion, and technical failure. Having spent nearly ₱18 billion on new technology, we now find ourselves questioning not just the outcome, but the entire system that produced several glitches. These are not isolated; they are symptoms of a deeper rot that began long before a single vote was cast.

The 2025 elections witnessed several irregularities. Voters across 20 provinces, including Metro Manila, reported machine malfunctions that rejected ballots and jammed voter receipts. In more alarming developments, thousands of voters witnessed discrepancies between their selections and the Voter-Verified Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs)—a foundational element meant to ensure transparency. Worse, election watchdogs later uncovered that Election Returns (ERs) were counted more than once, potentially altering official outcomes at both the municipal and national levels.

These failures can be traced directly to a procurement process fraught with negligence and disregard. The Commission on Elections (Comelec) awarded the automation contract to Miru Systems, a provider whose hybrid technology had never been used in a real election. Senators Risa Hontiveros, and Imee Marcos, former and reelected Caloocan  congressman Egay Erice as well as watchdogs like Democracy Watch and The Right 2 Know Right Now, decried the decision as legally questionable and dangerously untested. The ₱18 billion contract was a lease—not even a purchase—of equipment branded a prototype, in direct violation of the Automated Election Law of 2007.

Now, the chickens have come home to roost. Duplicate vote counts, overvoting due to ink bleed and poor-quality ballots, and a mismatch between deployed and certified software have all combined to erode public trust. Comelec’s post-election band-aid—a secretive “de-duplication script” run without public oversight—only deepens the crisis.

At the heart of this crisis stands the Random Manual Audit (RMA)—our last firewall against full-blown electoral disbelief. Civil society groups, especially the Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting (PPCRV), have taken the lead in calling for a significantly expanded audit. Their message is clear: this is not the time for institutional defensiveness. It’s time for independent verification, transparency, and full public accounting.

If this election is to retain any shred of legitimacy, Comelec must permit a full manual verification of all ERs and all ballots, expand the scope of the RMA, and grant independent access to machine logs, transmission trails, and source code. Anything less risks turning ₱18 billion of taxpayer money into the price of our democracy’s credibility.