The sight of thousands choking EDSA once again was jarringly familiar. Yet this time, the banners bore the seal of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) and the grievances were carefully wrapped in supposed religious solidarity.

On its face, the rally was protesting the looming plunder case against and impending arrest of Senator Rodante Marcoleta — an INC member — for allegedly accepting P75 million in undeclared campaign funds, a complaint greenlit by Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla.

Marcoleta, who once led the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee inquiry into the flood control corruption quagmire, has now found himself the accused rather than the inquisitor.

Calls for a national leadership change echoed alongside chants against perceived government oppression. It is no secret that the flood control controversy exposed raw nerves within the administration — a festering wound that no amount of damage control has been able to fully stitch closed.

The public wants heads to roll. Instead, cases have been lodged one by one against members of the opposition or the minority.

It is possible that the Ombudsman is very much aware that the subject acts of the plunder charges — already dismissed by the Comelec for not qualifying as an election offense — might not be sufficient for a final conviction, but were nonetheless filed for the purpose of preventing Marcoleta from participating and voting in Duterte’s impeachment trial.

What remains to be seen is how the INC will react given this new provocation against one of their own and the direct challenge to what they believe is the considerable political influence of the religious sect.

It’s also mind boggling how the former highest official of the DPWH, Manuel Bonoan, could qualify as the least guilty of those accused in the flood control corruption when nothing would have been approved without his complicity.

Also, how could his testimony be credible given that he has much to gain — his discharge from criminal charges in exchange for damning testimony against former speaker Martin Romualdez.

Would it not be self-serving given the magnitude of the charges he would have faced if he were charged? And since when has the deteriorating health and age of an accused been a factor in determining his qualification to be a state witness?

In other news, the DAILY TRIBUNE marked its 26th year of publication.

For over two decades, this paper has staked its reputation on being the thorn in the side of those in power — uncomfortable, persistent and unyielding. In an age where social media amplifies noise over nuance, and where “fake news” has become both a weapon and a shield, the DAILY TRIBUNE’s original compact with its readers must hold firm: to distinguish between prosecution and persecution, between accountability and vendetta.

These 26 years have taught us that the powerful, rich, and influential will always try to frame the narrative. Our job is to untangle their frame — not for any administration, not for any bloc, but for the truth that gets trampled when rallies turn into armies and courts turn into extensions of political will.

With the 2028 elections looming and the Marcos-Duterte rift simmering, moves against vocal critics — especially this particular one with a massive religious bloc behind him — will be read as tactical, not judicial.

Let’s not forget the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. Whether justified or not, perception has already outpaced due process.

The public must clamor — we must insist and demand that justice be blind and swift, not selective and delayed.