Last night, the cinephile in me was drawn to the Hollywood film, “Project Hail Mary.” In sports, a “Hail Mary” is an idiom for a desperate, last-ditch effort with a very low probability of success. In the movie, Ryan Golsing’s character — Dr. Ryland Grace — embarks on a frantic mission to save a cooling earth.

In the Philippine political theater, this reminds me of a very different kind of last-ditch effort, one that has frozen over immediately after kick-off.

I am referring to the recent attempt by 18 self-proclaimed former Marines to implicate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez in a staggering ₱P805-billion bribery scheme. Noticeably, what was promised to be an explosive revelation rapidly devolved into a masterclass in credibility fail.

While the allegations — delivered via high-profile press conferences and joint affidavits — were clearly aimed at delivering a terminal blow to the administration, they now appear to be a backfiring gamble. What is the core of their claim? That they acted as “bagmen” for former Ako Bicol Representative Zaldy Co, delivering suitcases of cash directly to the residences of the President and the Speaker.

The Palace was quick to dismiss the narrative as lousy scriptwriting, and investigators seemed to agree, finding the plot points more theatrical than factual.

The group’s standing as principled whistleblowers hit a snag when the Philippine Navy clarified that four of the 18 men were never actually part of the service. Furthermore, a majority were either dishonorably discharged or had gone AWOL.

Then came a glaring chronological error. The group claimed that Mamayang Liberal Representative Leila de Lima received suitcases of cash during the period she was a prisoner. It was a mathematical and physical impossibility that proved fatal to the accusers’ narrative — a “rookie mistake” in an P805-billion script.

Beyond the factual holes, there is the issue of the joint affidavit. The Office of the Ombudsman flagged the use of a single statement for all 18 individuals. Why could they not execute individual accounts based on their unique recollections? A collective testimony of this nature loses credibility. It suggests a rehearsed script rather than a shared truth.

Then there is the sheer scale of the math. Senator Ping Lacson pointed out the absurdity of the ₱P805 billion figure, noting that it would take roughly five years just to pack that amount of cash into suitcases and deliver them.

The timing was just as suspicious as the math. The claims surfaced exactly as political rivals began facing their own legal pressures, including International Criminal Court probes and legislative inquiries into other dynasties.

At this juncture, we must look beyond the allegations and question the intent. Is this a genuine crusade for accountability in the government leadership, or are these 18 individuals mere pawns in a larger, more cynical political theater? In a landscape where truth is often a casualty of timing, the “why” is just as important as the “what.”

Timing poses yet another hurdle for this “Hail Mary” attempt. National economic instability, compounded by conflict in the Middle East, has further diminished the odds for these 18 former Marines. It raises a fundamental question: Can the government justify prioritizing this investigation while the economy teeters?

Truth and accountability are noble pursuits, particularly when the targets are high-ranking officials suspected of serious wrongdoing. However, these ideals must not be weaponized to serve narrow political agendas at the expense of the public interest. If these former Marines truly operated as “bagmen” in the flood control scandal, they must face the rigors of a formal investigation backed by the strength of their own testimonies, rather than a scripted legal defense.

In the end, this “Hail Mary” attempt lacked the one thing every successful gambit needs: a solid basis in reality. Instead of a made shot, the orchestrators have found themselves fumbling the ball.