A protest march along Ayala Avenue on Sunday turned into a broader indictment of the country’s political accountability mechanisms, as demonstrators demanded the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte and another group questioned the swift dismissal of similar complaints against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

Members of the anti-corruption organization August Twenty-One Movement (ATOM) gathered at Ayala Triangle Gardens at dawn, launching what they called a “Walk Against Corruption.”

The group marched toward Buendia Avenue before circling back to the Ninoy Aquino statue, where organizers held a short but pointed program.

Participants carried banners and chanted “Impeach mga corrupt!” as they moved through the central business district, their calls echoing against the glass towers housing some of the country’s most powerful corporate institutions.

Being a Sunday, the protest merely echoed on sun-drenched, deserted streets and buildings, serving as a testament to the stupor that has seemed to envelop Filipinos already desensitized to corruption.

Organizers framed the demonstration as part of sustained civic pressure aimed at compelling Congress to act on allegations of corruption involving high-ranking officials.

In speeches, ATOM leaders warned of what they described as entrenched impunity, saying corruption continues to permeate public institutions. They urged lawmakers to act with urgency, particularly in relation to impeachment proceedings now unfolding in the House of Representatives.

Bound for plenary

Founded in the wake of the assassination of Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr. in 1983, ATOM emerged as one of the civil society groups that mobilized public outrage and helped fuel the protests that eventually led to the ouster of Ferdinand Marcos Sr. in 1986.

The group specifically called for the continuation of impeachment proceedings against Vice President Duterte, citing allegations that have drawn mounting public scrutiny.

While details of the accusations were not elaborated on during the rally, organizers emphasized that the process itself should proceed without political interference.

The march came as the move against Duterte garnered momentum in Congress. On Saturday, Rep. Terry Ridon disclosed that a House justice panel had secured enough votes to support a finding of probable cause against Duterte.

He said the chamber could soon reach the one-third threshold required to transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate.

Earlier, on 29 April, the House Committee on Justice voted unanimously to find probable cause in two consolidated complaints against the Vice President, setting the stage for a plenary vote that could determine whether she will face trial in the Senate.

The demonstration ended without incident. Authorities reported no arrests or violence, and organizers did not disclose crowd estimates.

What about Marcos?

Yet beyond the immediate focus on Duterte, Sunday’s protest also exposed deeper tensions over what critics describe as selective accountability.

Labor leader Luke Espiritu, president of Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino, voiced support for the impeachment proceedings against the Vice President but questioned why similar efforts against President Marcos Jr. had been swiftly shut down.

“We welcome the investigations against the Vice President, the impeachment, but it pains our heart that the impeachment of Marcos, when it comes to the flood control projects, was quickly trashed,” he said in Filipino during a radio program this Sunday.

“For us, it should be all of them, not just one person, when it comes to accountability,” he added.

Espiritu was referring to the fate of two impeachment complaints filed against Marcos earlier this year. On 10 February 2026, the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly, 284-8, to dismiss the complaints, declaring them insufficient in substance.

One complaint, filed by lawyer Andre de Jesus, alleged drug use and corruption, while another, lodged by the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan coalition, cited alleged irregularities in infrastructure spending and the use of PhilHealth funds.

The House Committee on Justice ruled that both complaints failed to meet the constitutional requirement of sufficiency in substance, characterizing the allegations as based on hearsay or lacking evidence.

Contrasts

The decisive vote effectively killed the complaints at the committee level.

Under the Constitution’s one-year bar rule, the dismissal grants the President immunity from new impeachment proceedings until 26 January 2027.

Malacañang has welcomed the outcome, saying the ruling would allow the administration to focus on economic priorities and strengthen government stability.

House leaders, for their part, stressed that impeachment should not be weaponized for political harassment.

For Espiritu and other critics, however, the contrast between the rapid dismissal of complaints against the President and the advancing case against the Vice President raises questions about consistency.

He also warned against what he described as a “binary” view of politics among Filipinos, where support for one impeachment effort is seen as allegiance to a rival political camp.

As an example, Espiritu noted that some observers interpret the impeachment of Duterte as benefiting Marcos, and that backing the process is equated with siding with the President.

He rejected that framing, saying his group’s position is rooted in the grievances of workers and marginalized sectors rather than partisan alignments.