Destabilizer or advocate?

Destabilizer or advocate? | Daily Tribune

A group of 18 men, claiming to have worked closely with former Rep. Zaldy Co, surfaced last week with their counsel to expose what they described as their witting or unwitting role in the distribution of billions of pesos to government officials.

Their testimony purportedly corroborated earlier statements made separately by a colleague and by Co himself. The allegations were sweeping. They named high-ranking officials, including the President, and appeared to “complete the sentence” of earlier Senate testimonies and sworn statements by other witnesses.

The response from government allies was swift and scathing. The exposé was dismissed as preposterous — a “badly written script” masquerading as political drama. The credibility of the 18 men was attacked; some were described as dishonorably dismissed military personnel. Other allies framed the timing — on the eve of the commemoration of the 1986 People Power uprising — as evidence of an orchestrated destabilization plot.

In the swirl of accusation and counter-accusation, a familiar name emerged: Michael Defensor.

Once a fiery young figure with leftist leanings, he rose to become a Quezon City councilor and later one of the youngest members of the House of Representatives. He was among those who supported the impeachment of President Joseph Estrada. Under President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, he served in her Cabinet and later was her Chief of Staff, operating at the vortex of executive power.

Brilliant, articulate and sometimes combative, Defensor has long been a consequential player in Philippine politics. He, however, was linked to the controversial “Udong Mahusay” episode during the Arroyo years — an affair that, fairly or unfairly, left questions about witness handling and political maneuvering. Today, critics allege that he is orchestrating the 18 men’s statements, echoing past accusations, to destabilize the sitting President. They insist the narrative is a recycled rumor, weaponized for political ends.

But focusing solely on personalities risks missing the larger institutional issue. The Philippines has lived through corruption scandals that shook public confidence and investor trust. The Priority Development Assistance Fund scam — known as the PDAF or pork barrel scam — remains emblematic. It exposed systemic weaknesses in public finance oversight and led to the conviction of Janet Lim-Napoles, yet it did not fully extinguish the perception that large-scale graft can flourish within government.

More recently, allegations surrounding flood control projects and other infrastructure items — street lighting, “cat’s eye” road markers, and various local works — have fed a narrative that procurement and project monitoring remain vulnerable. Whether each claim can withstand scrutiny is for investigators and the courts to determine. But the pattern is politically combustible: when billions of pesos are allegedly siphoned off while the public endures fiscal strain and rising prices, outrage becomes a potent destabilizer in itself.

The central question, therefore, is not simply whether this is an attempted destabilization. It is whether the government’s response strengthens or weakens institutional credibility.

To dismiss allegations outright as comedy or conspiracy may provide short-term political cover. Yet such reflexive denial risks compounding the damage if even some of the claims prove credible.

Conversely, to immediately frame whistleblowers and alleged political actors as seditious without a transparent inquiry may chill legitimate disclosures.

Philippine jurisprudence on sedition and inciting to sedition sets a high bar; political speech and allegations of wrongdoing, even if disruptive, are not automatically criminal unless accompanied by clear intent and acts to incite rebellion against lawful authority.

The wiser course is procedural, not rhetorical.

First, an independent, time-bound investigation should be initiated by constitutionally mandated bodies — the Ombudsman and, where appropriate, the Commission on Audit. Public hearings may proceed in the Senate, but prosecutorial action must rest on evidence, not innuendo. A special panel insulated from political pressure, with clear reporting timelines, would signal seriousness without prejudgment.

Second, whistleblower protections must be strengthened and applied evenly. If the 18 men are fabricating testimony, cross-examination and documentary review will expose inconsistencies. If they are telling the truth, safeguards are essential to prevent intimidation. Either way, the process — not personalities — should determine credibility.

Third, transparency in infrastructure spending must move beyond compliance theater. Digital procurement platforms, real-time project dashboards accessible to the public, and third-party technical audits can narrow the space for manipulation. Other ASEAN neighbors have piloted open-contracting data standards; there is no reason the Philippines cannot adopt and localize similar frameworks.

Fourth, political actors — including those like Defensor who are accused of being behind the exposé — should themselves submit to scrutiny. If there is evidence of coordinated attempts to incite unlawful action, it should be presented. But accusations of destabilization must not become a blanket shield against investigation. Democratic resilience lies in the capacity to investigate power, not in reflexively protecting it.

Ultimately, the most destabilizing force is not a press conference timed before an anniversary of People Power. It is the steady erosion of public trust — domestically and internationally — when citizens believe that accountability is selective and that public funds are perpetually at risk.

Markets price political risk swiftly. Investors track governance indicators. Development partners watch institutional responses.

The Philippines has endured leadership crises before and emerged stronger when institutions functioned. The choice today is stark: reduce the controversy to partisan theatrics, or elevate it to an opportunity to reaffirm the rule of law.

Destabilizer or advocate? The label may depend on one’s political vantage point. But for the Republic, the only sustainable answer is neither. The imperative is accountability — credible, transparent and fair. In the end, truth, established through due process, is the only stabilizer that matters.