Why due process still matters

In the wake of President Marcos Jr.’s directive to heads of agencies to submit courtesy resignations — a bold move to foster a culture of accountability — it is perhaps no coincidence that a so-called “white paper” emerged, anonymously accusing Bureau of Immigration Commissioner Joel Viado of corruption and misconduct.

The timing is too convenient, the claims too vague, and the method — unsigned, unattributed, and undetailed — deeply troubling. This is not to say that allegations of corruption should be ignored. On the contrary, every claim deserves to be looked into.

But there is a line between genuine whistleblowing and weaponized intrigue. When accusations are made without names, without documents, and without even the courage to stand behind their truth, they must be treated with caution, especially in a political climate already charged by leadership transitions and institutional reshuffling.

In my interviews, I was clear: the DoJ upholds due process. Allegations, especially those meant to shape public perception and influence leadership decisions, must be evidence-based and processed through the proper legal channels. Trial by publicity — especially from the shadows — erodes trust in institutions more than it cleanses them.

Commissioner Viado has categorically denied the allegations and rightly pointed to the possibility that entrenched interests within the Bureau are pushing back against recent reforms.

Since taking office, Viado has initiated a cleanup of corruption-riddled processes, particularly in deportation, visa quotas and the regulation of foreign nationals. That these reforms may have unsettled certain internal actors cannot be discounted. Reforms, after all, always invite resistance.

It is worth noting that in this political season, with the President seeking nothing less than a recalibration of public service under the banner of “Bagong Pilipinas,” internal sabotage, power plays and character assassinations can easily masquerade as accountability. This is precisely why discretion, discernment, and legal rigor must guide our response to documents like the so-called white paper.

President Marcos himself was measured in his remarks, recognizing that without specific details or identifiable authorship, the paper cannot yet serve as the basis for judgment. That posture is correct. Investigations can proceed — but so must fairness.

In the end, this moment should be a reaffirmation of our institutions, not their undoing. The DoJ’s stance reminds us that genuine reform does not depend on noise or intrigue, but on facts, the law and the courage to do what is right even when it is unpopular.

Commissioner Viado, like all public servants, deserves nothing less — and nothing more — than the equal protection of due process.