Impeachment trials for betrayal of public trust, accusations of plunder against lawmakers, bickering among Senate leaders and dismissal of cases involving the First Family – several investigations are underway in the Philippines, reflecting deep-rooted corruption within the bureaucracy and the role of impunity in the ongoing political crisis ahead of the highly anticipated 2028 presidential election.
The massive floods in July last year revealed the proliferation of substandard or non-existent flood projects. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. blamed corruption and pledged to seek accountability by creating the Independent Infrastructure Commission (ICI) to determine perpetrators, identify anomalous contracts and submit recommendations for filing legal cases.
The ICI completed its work on March 31 and reported success in recovering cash, luxury cars and other assets from corrupt entrepreneurs and officials. However, critics pointed out that he had not fulfilled his mandate since his investigation had not reached the presidential office. Marcos was accused of using the ICI to protect himself, his family and his closest allies from investigation for their role in implementing corruption-tainted projects in the national budget.
Based on ICI’s recommendations, the ombudsman filed complaints of corruption and plunder against some officials, including former and current members of Congress, resigned Cabinet officials, and large contractors. The ombudsman could target more people, but the slow dissemination of information has raised fears that he is engaging in selective prosecutions and blackmail aimed at intimidating political factions opposed to Marcos. One of those arrested was a senator known for his support of Vice President Sara Duterte, whose impeachment trial is scheduled to begin on July 6.
Duterte was impeached by the House of Representatives in May for alleged misuse of confidential funds and failure to report bank transactions amounting to at least six billion pesos. Duterte was an ally of Marcos until 2024, when she became a fierce critic of the administration. She says Marcos and his allies want to derail his presidential bid, even though the impeachment complaint was initiated by civil society figures who have consistently demanded accountability from the country’s highest officials. But Duterte is right that House members have refused to apply the same standards that were applied to him in handling the corruption allegations against Marcos.
When Duterte’s allies took over the Senate, they called for a public hearing and presented witnesses who said they delivered bags full of cash to various houses belonging to Marcos and his congressional subordinates. Even when they lost majority control, they continued to provide a platform for these witnesses whose credibility and motivations were called into question because their account contained numerous inconsistencies and inaccurate information. The Senate is now focused on the upcoming impeachment trial, but Duterte’s allies are expected to launch “explosive” briefings from their witnesses to insist that the vice president’s trial is only intended to distract public attention and minimize Marcos’ accountability.
It may seem that the Marcos and Duterte camps are simply vying for dominance and it is convenient to frame the issue as a preview of the 2028 elections, but the persistence of corruption underscores the normalization of impunity despite two people power uprisings in 1986 and 2001.
The 2025 corruption scandal sparked widespread public outrage, leading to nationwide protests on September 21 and November 30. The demand for accountability continued this year as protesters marked the 40th anniversary of People Power in February by demanding the prosecution and imprisonment of corrupt officials. The anti-corruption movement continues to gain momentum as various groups prepare for a white ribbon march on June 28, demonstrating efforts to unite and mobilize more people to fight corruption.
Marcos supporters may assume that the protests are directed at Duterte, but they ignore popular discontent not only against the president’s failure to end corrupt practices involving his allies, but also against his role in facilitating the release of funds used in the flood control scam. Martial law survivors also expressed concern over the alarming dismissal of almost all cases involving the Marcoses’ ill-gotten wealth.
Duterte’s impeachment trial may dominate headlines in the second half, but anti-corruption advocacy has set a broader agenda that includes not only prosecuting corrupt officials, but also rejecting the corruption-riddled system of barbarism and banning political dynasties. In other words, the Marcoses, the Dutertes, and their allied political clans are all held accountable for enabling and profiting from the systematic corruption that continues to plague Philippine politics.