Will Bongbong and Inday Sara finish their terms  through 2028?

The simultaneous specter of impeachment complaints looming on both the President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. and the Vice President Sara Duterte is a present and dangerous reality. A clear evidence of a political environment on the brink of institutional strain. 

The immediate question is blunt and unavoidable: Will “Bongbong” and/or “Inday” survive in their offices through 2028? The answer, if current trajectories continue, is both yes and no. In real terms, what happens next is an era of corrosive, noisy politics that threatens governance, justice, and the public good.

The legal scaffolding for removing presidents and vice presidents from office is clear in the 1987 Constitution: impeachment is the prescribed remedy for culpable violations of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, and other high crimes or betrayal of public trust. It is a grave, extraordinary process that must be handled with discipline, evidence, and respect for due process. Yet what is happening now is a collision between the noble ideal of accountability and the ugly mechanics of political warfare.

The complaint filed against the president endorsed by a party-list representative and brought by private counsel — arrives in a House of Representatives already wrestling publicly with what “counts” as a valid, constitutionally sound impeachment. Earlier effort on VP Duterte’s impeachment effort was stalled by the Supreme Court and the Escudero’s Senate, with the high tribunal’s July 2025 decision invoking technical grounds. The one-year rule and due process concerns —  and declared the articles unconstitutional and nevertheless put a procedural stop on the path to a Senate trial. 

As a reaction, the House is now explicitly considering rewriting its impeachment rules “to be Supreme Court-proof,” pledging to make future complaints “procedurally airtight.” Also, pending Ombudsman investigations against the VP Duterte further complicate the legal landscape.

These series of complaints, motions, reversals and procedural contortions creates a wide latitude for political actors to weaponize accountability mechanisms. If the path to impeachment can be cleared or blocked by technicalities, reinterpreted rules, and partisan majorities in the House, Senate and the Supreme Court, the process ceases to be primarily about truth and justice and becomes a blunt instrument for electoral advantage. 

And we must consider the damage to governance. Heavy politicking surrounding impeachment diverts executive and legislative attention from the urgent business of state: economic recovery, job creation, health care, disaster preparedness, and the everyday maintenance of public services. When the corridors of power are consumed by allegations, hearings, and counter-allegations, citizens are left with an empty promise of leadership. Bureaucrats will be paralyzed by fear of appearing partisan; implementation of policy will stall under uncertainty. 

The Constitution insists that “public services and public interest must not be derailed” — a principle easily said and routinely forgotten when headlines and soundbites replace public deliberation.

That said, we must be candid about two indispensable truths. Accountability matters. If the complaints rest on solid evidence — embezzlement, misuse of confidential funds, threats to officials, or other constitutional violations — then they must be investigated fully and, ifwarranted, prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The people deserve leaders who answer for their acts. 

Also, the real  and truthful explosive stories are emerging amid these fights: politically motivated moments can nonetheless surface real wrongdoing. 

With the 2028 elections only 19 months away, the country faces the prospect of relentless political combat. Campaigns will be launched not merely to persuade voters but to paralyze opponents. Investigations will be timed for maximum electoral damage. Courts and commissions will be bombarded with petitions designed more to drain resources than to illuminate facts. In this context, citizens and institutions pay the price. The economy, investor confidence, and basic public services will be jeopardized by prolonged uncertainty. 

The present moment is a test of political maturity. It is a moment that summons leaders — in the House, Senate,  in the Palace, Supreme court, and in civil society — to choose courage over cowardice, principle over partisanship, and justice over vengeance. If impeachment processes are required, they must be conducted with the utmost scrupulousness and for the right reasons. If they are not, they must be rejected as instruments of political malice.

If we are to emerge from this period with our democracy intact, we must insist that accountability be honest and impartial, that constitutional safeguards be honored rather than exploited, and that public services remain.  Anything less is a betrayal of the people and a threat to the nation’s future. (next) 

Unvalidated DPWH data harmed professional engineers

The recent “ghost flood control projects” scandal is a textbook example of governance gone wrong: a presidential order, a rushed data dump, and a planning database treated as gospel turned innocuous planning pins into alleged proof of corruption. 

The DPWH’s MYPS system contains preliminary, proposed locations—not verified, as-built coordinates. Releasing those raw entries without field validation was negligent. The result: projects that existed were labeled “ghosts,” engineers and long‑serving officials were publicly branded corrupt, families shamed, and careers and liberty stripped—often before a single fact was checked. A private audit ultimately confirmed what on‑the‑ground engineers had been saying: confirmed ghost projects are limited and localized, not the nationwide scandal headlines suggested. By then, justice had already been replaced by spectacle.

Today, DPWH announced that it is in the process of revalidating 421 out of 8,000 flood control projects earlier declared as non-existent or “ghost” projects. Public Works Secretary Vince Dizon said he ordered the revalidation following reports former DPWH Secretary Manuel Bonoan deliberately provided President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. incorrect grid coordinates, which led to a bloated count of ghost flood control projects. Sen. Panfilo Lacson, head of the Senate Blue Ribbon committee that is investigating anomalous flood control projects, earlier said,  “This resulted in grossly inaccurate data involving some 421 ghost projects among previously inspected flood control projects,”  (In the Senate Blue Ribbon hearing only 14 projects were confirmed to be ghost projects  out of the earlier reported 421.)

Transparency without accuracy is cruelty. Accountability built on flawed premises is injustice. Before we destroy reputations and lock up public servants, we must verify. Before we publish, we must validate. Those who rushed unverified data into the public square must answer for the human cost of their haste.

If we are serious about rooting out corruption, reform must start with better data governance: clear labeling of planning versus implementation datasets, mandatory field validation before publication, and safeguards that prevent political haste from weaponizing provisional spreadsheets. Bad data, amplified by mob mentality and politics, is as dangerous as corruption itself—and its victims are often the very professionals who keep the country running.