Politics and accountability
At their core, the two high-profile officials share a common thread: both appear to have fallen outside the President’s protective political orbit.
Text size
At their core, the two high-profile officials share a common thread: both appear to have fallen outside the President’s protective political orbit.
In a matter of days, the local political landscape has been thoroughly upended by a series of dramatic legal enforcement actions.
The recent serving of an arrest warrant on Vice President Sara Duterte by a Quezon City court and the arrest of former House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez under a Sandiganbayan warrant present a fascinating paradox: they are the same story, yet entirely different.
At their core, the two high-profile officials share a common thread: both appear to have fallen outside the President’s protective political orbit.
In raw political terms, power is rarely maintained by popularity alone. It depends on an inner coalition of loyal brokers, financiers, family allies, institutional operators and vote-delivering blocs. A president survives by keeping this coalition useful, rewarded and disciplined. When a figure within that circle becomes too ambitious, too costly, or too unpredictable, the logic of survival changes from protection to containment. This is where the Duterte and Romualdez cases converge.
Vice President Duterte, the President’s 2022 running mate, was once indispensable. She supplied political machinery, regional support, and the symbolic unity of two powerful dynasties. But once she emerged as a primary rival to the administration’s future, her value as an ally diminished while her cost as a challenger rose. Her recent arrest warrant over criminal grave threats charges marks the breakdown of that alliance.
By contrast, former Speaker Romualdez was not an external threat but an internal liability. As the former speaker and a presidential cousin, he represented proximity to power itself. Once the P7.44-billion flood control plunder scandal became politically toxic, shielding him risked making the administration look complicit.
In both cases, distance became a political necessity.
Yet, the public meaning of these two events diverges sharply. The legal moves against Vice President Duterte — unfolding alongside her ongoing impeachment trial — is inevitably seen through the prism of rivalry, impeachment and succession politics. Her supporters can frame it as persecution; her critics can insist it is overdue accountability.
Romualdez’s arrest performs a different political function. Because he belongs to the President’s own family, his prosecution answers the accusations of selective justice. It allows the anti-graft machinery to project the message that even ultimate insiders are not immune.
How, then, should the public digest these rapid-fire developments?
This creates the administration’s strongest defense. Palace allies can argue that the dual crackdowns prove the justice system is blind to political status. If both a former ally turned fierce rival and a presidential relative can face legal consequences, the Palace can claim consistency, independence and seriousness in its anti-corruption and rule-of-law campaigns.
Critics, however, might warn that this machinery can further be leveraged as lawfare to threaten or weaken more opposition figures and critical politicians.
The skeptical reading remains difficult to dismiss. Accountability and political convenience can comfortably coexist. The fact that a case is legally serious does not mean its timing is politically innocent.
Romualdez’s fall may help the administration absorb public anger over corruption by sacrificing a damaged insider. Duterte’s legal troubles may weaken a rival before future electoral contests fully take shape. The danger is not simply selective prosecution; it is prosecution that becomes selective only in timing, emphasis, and spectacle.
The public, therefore, should avoid making easy conclusions. These developments may represent a rare moment when powerful figures are compelled to answer for alleged wrongdoing. Yet they may also reveal how swiftly justice is activated when it aligns with the demands of political survival and the need to appease critical public opinion.
The central question, then, is not whether Duterte and Romualdez should face scrutiny. Like any public official, they should. The harder test is whether the same urgency will reach every powerful actor, especially those who remain useful to the ruling circle or have been implicated in the flood control mess.
Until that standard is applied consistently, this twin turmoil should be understood not only as a test of institutional accountability, but also as a stark lesson in how power preserves itself — by deciding whom it can still protect and whom it can afford to abandon.
