DANCING ANGEL & TIPTOEING ELEPHANT: INSIDE SARA'S IMPEACHMENT RULING

 

Curtain Raiser

In a ruling that feels more like choreography than jurisprudence, the Supreme Court’s handling of Sara Duterte’s impeachment dances between legal nuance and political theater. This article unpacks the delicate footwork behind the decision, where angel twirls on legal pinhead and elephant tiptoes through a constitutional minefield.

The Ruling, the Backlash, and the Spectacle

Have you been following the media coverage of the Supreme Court (SC) ruling on Sara Duterte’s impeachment and its backlash? If so, you might have stumbled into what feels less like a legal proceeding and more like a courtroom-themed drama – complete with robes, rhetoric, and a plot twist worthy of primetime television.

It all began with this ruling:

“The Supreme Court En Banc on July 25, 2025, declared the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte unconstitutional, noting that it is barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, section 3(5) blah… blah… blah.”

And in no time, the backlash rolled in.

Prominent lawyers and constitutional experts lined up to call foul. The Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), which includes Senior Associate Justice Leonen among its alumni, called the ruling “grossly unfair” and “a violation of the Constitution.”

The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) said the SC had “departed from the Constitution.”

Former Chief Justice Panganiban suggested a Status Quo Ante order and oral arguments. Christian Monsod, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, said the SC may need to “correct itself.” And former Associate Justice Carpio? He warned that the SC had crossed into political territory where it had no business being.

At this point, dear ATABAY readers, do you have an iota of an idea what’s happening?

Let me give you a piece of my mind - not as a lawyer (I’m an engineer), but as a writer and a chess player. Let’s connect the dots, get the pieces moving, and figure out what’s going on behind the velvet curtains of our political backstage.

Welcome to the Legal Festival

If you’ve been keeping up with Sara’s impeachment saga, you might feel like you’re watching a political carnival. It is complete with legal acrobatics and a chorus of experts debating whether angels can, in fact, dance on the head of a pin.

Yes, that’s the metaphorical question dominating the discourse: how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Because when the conversation becomes so obsessed with hair-splitting technicalities, the real issues start spinning out of sight.

The Spectacle of Legalese

Turn on any news channel or scroll through your feed, and you’ll find legal scholars locked in a technical war of words. They dissect precedents, parse constitutional clauses, and argue over procedural nuances with the precision of watchmakers. It’s impressive, no doubt – but also oddly theatrical.

This isn’t to say that legal rigor is unimportant. But when the debate becomes so granular that it loses sight of the broader implications, one begins to wonder: Is this legal scholarship or interpretive dance?

The Elephant in the Courtroom

While the angels twirl, a rather large elephant tiptoes through the courtroom – one that few seem willing to acknowledge. That elephant? The fact that 12 of the current Supreme Court justices were appointed by former President Duterte, whose daughter, Sara, is at the center of the impeachment controversy.

Now, malice aside, it’s not unreasonable for the public to raise an eyebrow. When a ruling directly affects the political future of the former president’s daughter, and the majority of the justices owe their robes to him, the optics alone are enough to make Lady Justice peek from under her blindfold.

A Fly in the Ointment

Even if we grant the ruling its legal legitimacy, there’s a lingering discomfort – a fly in the ointment, if you will. It’s the sense that something doesn’t quite sit right. That amid all the procedural purity and judicial eloquence, the ruling may be tainted by proximity, by legacy, by quiet loyalties.

It’s not an accusation. It’s a question. And questions - especially uncomfortable ones - are the lifeblood of democracy.

The Chessboard Beneath the Robes

Now, as a chess player, let me shift the metaphor. Behind the scenes, the real game played out.

Sara, the queen on the board, faced a threat. The impeachment was a challenge to her position, a potential disruption to the dynasty’s continuity. And the SC's ruling? A defensive maneuver. A castling move to shield the queen and preserve the king’s legacy.

The knights – legal minions, leapt across media platforms, defending the ruling with elegant logic and selective precedent. The bishops – moral supporters, blessed the decision, urging trust in the institution.

And the pawns? The Filipino people. We moved slowly, one square at a time, asking questions, voicing dissent. But on this board, pawns are expendable. Their outrage is absorbed, their momentum redirected.

Yet pawns hold potential. Reach the other side, and they transform. That’s the latent power of civic awareness.

The Masquerade of Legitimacy

The brilliance of this dual metaphor lies in its deception.

The SC performs justice while playing politics. It speaks in the language of law while moving in the logic of power. It wears robes but holds pieces. It dances while it calculates.

And the audience? We’re caught between awe and suspicion. We want to believe in the sanctity of the stage, but we see the fingerprints on the board.

When the Stage Collapses and the Board Tilts

What happens when the performance falters? When the choreography reveals its strings? When the chessboard tilts and the pieces slide?

Trust erodes.

Not just in one ruling, but in the institution itself. The SC risks becoming not the guardian of justice, but a player in a dynastic match – its moves predictable, its robes threadbare.

And in that moment, the Filipino people must choose: to remain spectators, or to rewrite the script and reset the board.

A Call to Consciousness

The angels may keep dancing. The pieces may keep moving. But the whole nation is awakening.

And if we listen closely – not just to the music, but to the silence between the notes – we may yet reclaim the stage. Or better yet, flip the board.

Content and editing put together in collaboration with Bing Microsoft AI-powered Co-pilot and Grammarly

Head image created by ChatGPT, Design by Canva

Still photos courtesy of The Metro Lawyer, ChaGPT Image Creator. NightCafe, Dreamstime.com, Adobe Stock

PROLONGING THE AGONY: SARA'S STORMY ROAD TO 2028

 

If Philippine politics were a teleserye, Sara Duterte’s journey would be the kind that makes viewers yell at their screens – equal parts suspense, betrayal, and existential dread. But unlike your average soap opera, this one comes with Supreme Court (SC) rulings, International Criminal Courts (ICC) trials, and a dynasty’s dream dangling on the edge of a constitutional cliff.

So here we are, dear ATABAY readers, watching the daughter of a former president navigate a road paved with disqualifications, broken alliances, and impeachment threats. The question isn’t just whether she’ll make it to 2028 – it’s whether our nation can stomach the journey without losing its last shred of trust.

A Dynasty’s Dream Deferred

It all began with a father’s dream. Rodrigo Duterte, flush with power and populist fervor, envisioned his daughter Sara as his successor in 2022. She led the presidential surveys, had the machinery, and carried the name. But then – plot twist – she ran for Vice President instead, hitching her wagon to Bongbong Marcos in a political marriage dubbed the UniTeam.

It was a union of convenience, not conviction. The perceived understanding? Marcos gets 2022, Sara receives 2028 - simple math. But in politics, equations rarely balance.

The Ghost of Marcos’ Disqualification Case

Enter the ghost of Marcos’ conviction. A disqualification loomed, threatening to upend the entire electoral outcome.

Had the Supreme Court ruled against him, Leni Robredo would have ascended to the presidency.

In basketball lingo, our nation’s SC missed the two-minute buzzer-beater disqualification slam dunk, which, oddly enough, is a DDS daydream today.

Contrast that with a bold precedent from India’s Supreme Court, which faced a similar dilemma and chose principle over popularity.

Indian constitutionalist Pratik Patnik put it best – his words struck a chord that still reverberates. The Court, he said, had composed “one of the best tunes to come out of its hallowed halls.”

This Indian ruling stands as a gold standard – a template of judicial courage that the Philippines, with its fragile justice system, might aspire to emulate.

The UniTeam Breakup: From Unity to Feud

Sad to say, political marriages, like real ones, don’t always last. The UnITeam fractured. Marcos and Duterte camps began trading barbs, and the alliance, once promising continuity, now reeked of betrayal.

Sara found herself isolated, her loyalty questioned, her future uncertain. And then came the impeachment charges.

The Impeachment Damocles Sword

The allegations were explosive: threats to assassinate Marcos, misuse of confidential funds, and whispers of secret bank accounts tied to her father, lurking like Pandora’s box, waiting to be pried open.

The impeachment has posed an existential political threat to Sara. But once again, like her guardian angel, the Supreme Court stepped in, ruling the process unconstitutional. 

A million-dollar question: Does that past lesson refer to the Marcos’ disqualification case, which happened to be not the right time to do the right thing in the right way?

Strange to say, both the past error and the correction now have politically safeguarded Sara Duterte.

Fair enough, the latest SC babysitting technicality ruling on her impeachment is not an absolution. The charges remain. The Damocles sword still hangs. It can be refiled next year - sharper and more lethal.

The Hague and the Second Damocles Sword

As if one sword weren’t enough, another looms: Rodrigo Duterte’s ICC trial for crimes against humanity. His detention at the Hague marked a symbolic rupture. The sins of the father now cast a long shadow over the daughter’s ambitions.

Two swords. One over her head, the other over her legacy.

Revival or Reprieve?

So, does the latest SC ruling on her impeachment signal a political revival for Sara Duterte? Or is it merely a way to prolong the agony – hers, and ours?

Revival suggests redemption. Reprieve suggests delay. And delay, in politics, often means the slow erosion of public trust. The longer the reckoning is postponed, the more corrosive the doubt becomes.

The Agony of Public Trust

Sara Duterte’s road to 2028 is less a campaign trail and more a gauntlet. Unresolved truths, judicial lifelines, and the ghosts of past political alliances haunt each step forward.

The real tragedy isn’t just whether Sara rises or falls. It’s whether the Filipino people, weary and wounded, can still believe in the possibility of accountability.

When we delay justice, and preserve power by technicalities, what we prolong isn’t just a politician’s agony – it’s the agony of a nation still waiting for closure.

Content & editing put together in collaboration with Bing Microsoft AI-powered Co-pilot & Grammarly

Head photo courtesy of Stock Cake, design by Canva

Still photos courtesy of IMT, Alchetron.com, Live Law, I stock, YouTube, ChatGPT image, & Adobe Stock

COLDPLAYGATE & DOLOMITEGATE: A TALE OF TWO SCANDALS

In the age of curated chaos, scandal has become our official soundtrack. It plays in boardrooms and beach fronts, in concert halls and congressional hearings. It’s the rhythm of revelation, the beat of betrayal, the chorus of collective gasp. We don’t just consume scandal – we remix it, meme it, suffix it.

And like any good pop song or political farce, it needs a hook. Enter Coldplaygate and Dolomitegate – two hits from different genres, both climbing the charts of public outrage. One is a ballad of betrayal caught on camera - the other, a bureaucratic beach party that turned into a floodgate in opera.

So, tune in, dear ATABAY Readers. The gates are open.

Welcome to the Age of Gatekeeping

Once upon a time, Watergate was just the name of a swanky hotel. Then came the break-in, the tapes, the presidential resignation – and suddenly, gate became the universal suffix for scandal. Fast-forward to today, and we’re drowning in gates. Some are open to corruption; others, to awkward intimacy. Some block literal water, others flood the internet with memes.

Internet memes

Storm in Coldplaygate and Dolomitegate – two scandals, one international and musical, the other national and political. One involves a kiss cam gone rogue, the other a beach made of crushed rock that may have turned Manila’s streets into canals. Both are now immortalized in the Hall of Fame great scandal suffix. And both, in their ways, reveal how public spectacle often masks deeper dysfunction.

Dolomitegate: When Sand Meets Storm Surge

In 2020, the Duterte administration decided that what Manila Bay needed wasn’t mangrove restoration or sewage overhaul – but a beach. A white one. Made of dolomite. Transported. Expensive. Melodramatic. As critics noted, about as valuable in flood mitigation as a paper umbrella in a typhoon.

Dolomite Beach

Fast forward to present: Manila floods. The MMDA points fingers at the dolomite beach, claiming it blocked three critical outfalls. The DENR, in turn, blames climate change – as if the rain itself conspired against their beachfront vision. Meanwhile, citizens wade through waist-deep water wondering if the P389 million spent on artificial beach could’ve bought, say, a working drainage system.

Sniffing around, Congress is now asking whether the dolomite project was even part of the official rehabilitation plan. Spoiler: it wasn’t. But it did make for a great DDS photo ops. And now, it makes for a great metaphor – Dolomitegate, where the sand meant to beautify the bay may have worsened the flooding of the city.

Manila flooding

Interestingly, we have a passage in the Bible tipping off the same foolishness of “a man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.” (Matthew 7:26-27)

Coldplaygate: When the Kiss Cam Kisses Back

Meanwhile, in the U.S., Coldplay was serenading 65,000 fans when frontman Chris Martin decided to play cupid with a kiss cam. The camera focused on a man and woman who looked cozy – until they realized they were on screen. The man ducked. The woman turned away. Martin quipped, “Either they’re having an affair or they’re just very shy.”

Turns out, they were having an affair. And they weren’t just any couple – they were the CEO and HR head of a tech firm called Astronomer. Both married. Both are now internet-famous. Byron resigned. Cabot vanished. And internet turned the moment into a meme buffet – sumsuman in Bisaya, pulutan in Tagalog, appetizer in English.

Internet's appetizer

Thus, Coldplaygate was born – a scandal where music met misconduct, and the kiss cam became a surveillance device. It’s a reminder that in the age of viral everything, even a concert can become a courtroom.

A Tale of Two Gates

So, what do these two scandals have in common?

Both involve public exposure – one literal, one metaphorical.

Both triggered institutional embarrassment – one in government, the other in corporate tech.

Both amplified by media frenzy, satire, and the irresistible allure of a good -gate.

And both, ultimately, reflect our collective obsession with naming and framing. We don’t just want accountability – we want it branded, hash-tagged, and meme-ready.

We’re All Gatekeepers 

Scandals, like maps, tell us where the fault lines lie. Coldplaygate raced the contours of privacy and power in the age of viral voyeurism. Dolomitegate charted the erosion of foresight beneath a layer of transported white sand. Both revealed what happens when spectacle replaces substance, and when institutions forget that optics don’t float.

But here’s the twist: every -gate is also a mirror. It reflects not just the missteps of the mighty, but the gaze of the many. We name these scandals not to bury them, but to brand them – because in naming, we claim a kind of control. We gatekeep the narrative.

So, let us be mapmakers of conscience. Let us draw the lines, not just around what went wrong, but around what must be made right.

And if that sounds too abstract, let me leave you with a fable I read a long time ago which I dredged up from the innermost recess of my memory.

The Fable of the Forgotten Gate

One day, the high-and-mighty organs of the human body held a bragging session. The brain flaunted its logic, the heart boasted of love and lifeblood, and the mouth waxed poetic about its power of speech. Each declared: “If I shut down, the body collapses.”

Out of nowhere, the butthole tried to speak.

Everyone laughed.

Embarrassed, the humble butthole quietly withdrew.

Days passed. The body began to bloat with waste. Energy faltered. Thought muddled. Breath strained. Doctors scratched their heads.

Finally, they discovered the truth: the butthole had shut itself down. The gate blocked, the system poisoned from the inside out.

The organs stopped laughing.

They had learned the hard way: you ignore the gate at your peril.

Dear Readers, let that fable be a cautionary tale – for Dolomitegate, for Coldplaygate, and for any body politic that treats minor players or messy truths as punchlines. Sometimes, the dirtiest floodgate is the most essential – and the stink it leaves behind is the cost of pride and neglect.

So, next time a -gate catches on, look beneath the headlines.

Something deeper down below might be clogging the flow.

Content and editing put together in collaboration with Bing Microsoft AI-powered Co-pilot and Grammarly

Head collage photos courtesy of Business Insider, Campaign Asia, YouTube, & Facebook; design by Canva

Still photos courtesy of St. Louis Cardinals, 23 XI Racing, Hyperallergic, Mayra@LePapillonBlu2, The Simpsons, financialexpress, Lego, Savanna Bananas, Day2Day Memes, The Metal Realm, Reddit, The Wall Street Journal, ABS-CBN, QuoteFancy, & Philstar

TRUTH ON TRIAL: DONALD TRUMP'S EPSTEIN FILES & SARA DUTERTE'S IMPEACHMENT SAGA

 

If loyalty is the velvet rope of politics, truth is the gatecrasher – demanding entry, disrupting the party, and refusing to leave quietly.

This week, we find ourselves watching two political dramas unfold on opposite ends of the globe, each starring a leader who once rode the wave of unwavering loyalty, now paddling against the current of uncomfortable truth.

In the U.S., Donald Trump is neck-deep in the Epstein Files fiasco, with his MAGA supporters turning on him faster than you can say “client list.” Meanwhile, here in the Philippines, Vice President Sara Duterte is facing impeachment, with her DDS putting all-out efforts to dismiss the case faster than you can say “Mary Grace Piattos.”

Both leaders are learning the same lesson: loyalty is loud, but truth is persistent. And when the two collide, it’s not applause that matters – it’s who’s still standing when the curtain falls.

Trump MAGA Meltdown: The Case of the Missing Ledger

Once upon a campaign trail, Trump swore he’d drain the swamp. Instead, he built a luxury resort on it and sold naming rights. The Epstein client list became the MAGA mythos’ Holy Grail - a sacred scroll of sins that, once revealed, would supposedly bring down the entire elite cabal.

Attorney General Pam Bondi, ever the tease, claimed it was “sitting on my desk,” presumably wedged between a MAGA mug and a vanilla-scented candle labeled Deep State Detox.

Then came the DOJ memo: Epstein died by suicide. No client list. No blackmail files. Just a whole lot of dashed hopes and crushed conspiracy dreams. The swamp, it seemed, was not drained – it was redecorated.

MAGA influencers lost it. Bondi was labelled a traitor. Trump was accused of betrayal. Even Elon Musk popped in for a hot second, dropped a cryptic post, deleted it, and, one assumes, launching another rocket to escape the backlash.

Trump’s response? Classic Trump: shrug, deflect, and point at the deep state like it’s the boogeyman hiding under every bed. But this time, his base wasn’t buying it. Turns out, when you promise fireworks and deliver a fog machine, people start asking questions.

So, what did Trump do? He turned on his own supporters, calling them gullible “weaklings.” MAGA hats were burned. Epstein truthers were ghosted. The whole thing was dismissed as a “hoax,” and the swamp bubbled on.

Then – plot twist! The Wall Street Journal dropped a birthday bombshell: a collection of letters sent to Epstein for his 50th birthday, including one signed by Trump and featuring a tasteful outline of a naked woman. Because nothing says “Happy Birthday” like erotic doodles from your billionaire pals.

As I scramble to keep up with this political telenovela, Trump, now feeling the heat, orders Bondi to seek the release of grand jury testimony. Because when in doubt, throw paperwork at the fire.

And just when you thought the bromance was dead, Musk reappears with parting shot: Trump’s crisis strategy, he says, boils down to three steps: 1. Admit nothing; 2. Deny everything; 3. Make counterclaims. Then he added, “But it won’t work this time.”

Sara Duterte’s Dilemma: The Impeachment Dance

Meanwhile, in our native land, VP Sara Duterte is doing her political tango. Facing impeachment charges ranging from corruption to an assassination plot against the President, she’s leaning heavily on her DDS supporters to boogie down the truth.

Legal maneuvers are underway to shrug off the charges. But the public isn’t absent-minded. They still remember she once trumpeted her personal standard of honesty.

Ah, yes, the maxim of moral relativism. Catchy, but not exactly presidential.

Now, as she eyes the 2028 race, that statement hangs over her ambition like a disco ball of doubt. Because while the law may only require a candidate to read and write simply, the electorate is increasingly asking: "Can you also tell the truth?"

Truth vs. Loyalty: The Political Tug-of-War

Both Trump and Duterte now find themselves entangled in a storm where truth keeps knocking at the door, and loyalty keeps trying to change the locks.

For Trump, the truth crisis centers on the long-promised Epstein client list. For Duterte, the truth crisis takes the form of impeachment, as well as the moral baggage, ousting the virtue of honesty. In both cases, the leaders face a reckoning not just with legal systems, but with the ethical expectations of their constituencies.

And here’s the kicker – truth doesn’t care about campaign slogans. It doesn’t care about dynasties or hashtags. It shows up uninvited, refuses to be stage-managed, and asks the one question loyalty avoids:

“What are you hiding?”

The Reckoning Is Not Optional

So, what lesson lurks beneath the tent of this political circus?

If you’re running for office, say, as a presidential wannabe in 2028, don’t treat truth like a PR problem. Treat it like a prerequisite. Because loyalty may win you followers, but truth earns you history.

Trump’s Epstein Files is a cautionary tale for VP Duterte and her presidential ambition. If you promise transparency and deliver food names on your official receipts as absurd as Jay Kamote or Miggy Mango, thinking Filipinos are clueless, they eventually walk out.

After all, it’s not loyalty that writes your history – it’s the truth that refused to be silenced.

So, before we close the curtain on this tale of political reckoning, let’s trade solemnity for satire and end on a lighter note.

To jazz up your day, I invite you to imagine a fictional debate between Trump and Duterte - moderated not by journalists or pundits, but by the two virtues the duo wrestled with most: Truth and Loyalty.

Opening Statements

Truth: Welcome to The Reckoning. Question of the Day: Can power survive without honesty? Let’s begin.

Loyalty: (whispers to both candidates) Don’t worry. Just say what your base supporters want to hear. I’ll handle the rest.

Trump: Thank you, Truth. Beautiful name. Very underrated. Look, I just ordered the release of the Epstein Files. Tremendous files. But the deep state – very nasty people – hid them in a closet next to Hillary’s emails.

Duterte: I appreciate the invitation. I believe honesty is… flexible, like traffic rules in Manila.

The Mirror Moment

Truth: Let’s try something radical. Each of you will look into the Mirror and tell the audience what you see.

Trump: I see a witch hunt. I see fake news. I see a hoax. I see gullible "weaklings" bought into it.

Truth: You also see a base that’s asking questions you promised to answer.

Loyalty: Ignore that. Our followers love you. They don’t want facts – they want fireworks.

Duterte: I see impeachment papers, critics, and… oh, look! A legal loophole. That’s comforting.

Truth: You also see your quote sacking the virtue of honesty. Would you like to revise that?

Duterte: Only if the law requires it. Otherwise, I prefer ambiguity – it’s more electable.

Audience Questions

MAGA: Mr. Trump, where’s the client list?

Trump: I would say it was made up by Obama and Biden.

DDS: Ma’am Sara, will you face the impeachment charges?

Duterte: I’ll face them through my defensive team of 16 top-flight lawyers and a stack of procedural game plans.

Truth: So, neither of you will confront the truth directly?

Loyalty: Of course not. That’s what I’m here for.

Closing Statements

Trump: I’ve been loyal to my base. That’s what matters. Truth is overrated – like vegetables.

Duterte: I’ve been loyal to my father’s legacy. Truth is… negotiable, like campaign promises.

Truth: Let it be remembered: loyalty that dodges truth is pure theater – and sooner or later, the mask slips and the lights go out.

Loyalty: But the applause? That’s mine.

Curtain Call

The audience claps. Some cheer. Some boo. A bunch of critical thinkers finish their popcorn, quietly exit, and mutter something about Plato needing to pee.

In the end, whether you’re courting votes or dodging charges, history doesn’t hand out trophies for best performance – it remembers who had the nerve to walk offstage and tell the truth.

Content & editing put together in collaboration with Bing Microsoft AI-powered Co-pilot & Grammarly

Head collage photos courtesy of theweek.com cartoons, East Asia Forum, Kweba ni Barok, Pinoy Expose, Free PPT Backgrounds, & design by Canva

Still photos courtesy of Bombo Radyo Iloilo, Democracy Docket, Philippine News Agency, Vera Files, Malaya, TV5, Impact Leadership-Facebook, Unsplash, Reflections, TikTok, & Shutterstock.

TATAY DIGONG, DADDY TRUMP: HOW STRONGMEN TURNED FEAR INTO FATHERHOOD

 

Hello everyone! Welcome to GeopoliTik Talk, the live show from Studio 13 where we strip power down to its bones, and raise the questions most want the answers -  but are afraid to ask. I’m your host, Raymond, and today we’re brainstorming a provocative, global phenomenon: Daddy Knows Best – How Populists Became Patriarchs.

Let’s unmask the myth of these authoritarian “daddies” who sold us safety. Before I introduce our guest, let me tell you a tale of two “Daddies.”

One lives in the West, known for his red tie and thunderous tweets. The other, in the East, ruled with gravel in his voice and death in his rhetoric. They may live oceans apart, but the rulebooks look hauntingly alike.

Without further ado, please help me welcome our special guest who will help us unpack this whole shebang - geopolitical expert and analyst… Mr. AI.

MR. AI: Thank you, Raymond. Thrilled to be here. When power wears a paternal mask, it pays to lift the veil – and I’m here to help do just that.

ME: To start the ball rolling – give us an icebreaker. In one sentence: how did Trump and Duterte become their nations’ “Daddies”?

MR. AI: By playing the angry father who promises protection through punishment – and convincing people that fear was love in disguise.

ME: That reminds me of Time’s cover banner of Duterte: The Punisher. Straight up – what’s the psychology behind people calling their presidents “Daddy” or Tatay?

MR. AI: It’s emotional outsourcing – putting the responsibility for our emotions on other people. When institutions falter or chaos emerges, people crave order. “Daddy” or Tatay becomes a symbol of assurance, even if that assurance is brutal.

ME: So, this isn’t just about strongman politics – it’s personal?

MR. AI: Deeply personal. Trump and Duterte didn’t just lead; they performed fatherhood. They said: “Only I can fix this.” And millions believed them – not as presidents, but as saviors.

ME: Let’s talk tactics. What do these two share in their playbook?

MR. AI: Fear. Disdain for institutions. Weaponizing the law. Demonizing the other. And most crucially, turning democracy into a personality cult.

Trump had deportation quotas and ICE raids. Duterte had body counts and death squads - different languages, but the same grammar of control.

ME: Okay. But where do the followers fit in? MAGA in the U.S., DDS in the Philippines – it’s eerie.

MR. AI: They’re mirror movements - uniforms, chants, digital loyalty tests. You’re not just voting – you’re swearing allegiance. Trumpism and Dutertismo became identities, not ideologies.

ME: Let’s move on to the meat of the matter. Duterte is now on trial at the International Criminal Court. Does the Tatay myth die in the Hague?

MR. AI: It flinches – but doesn’t die easily.

Duterte at the ICC isn’t just legal news – it’s a cultural reckoning. The father figure is being cross-examined. And for many, that feels like watching their own beliefs on trial.

Duterte at the Hague

But here’s the twist: the courtroom isn’t just judging the man. It’s holding up a mirror to a whole country and asking, “Was this love – or was it just violence with a lullaby?”

ME: That’s chilling. What does this mean for accountability in paternal populism?

MR. AI: It means the spell can be broken. Not by shouting, but by storytelling. When the protector turns predator, the myth cracks. And once people stop whispering Tatay, or “Daddy” in reverence, they start remembering how to whisper the truth.

ME: We have here a question from our studio audience, Dionne, a college student.

DIONNE: Hi Mr. AI, do you think humor and satire can fight something as serious as authoritarianism?

MR. AI. That’s a thought-provoking question, Dionne. Authoritarians survive anger – but they can’t survive laughter. Satire is subversive. It peels off the mask, mocks the myth, and reminds us that the emperor’s barong – or red tie – isn’t shockproof.

Think The Daily Show and the many American late-night talk and news satire television programs or memes that poke holes in “Daddy”’s logic. Once you laugh, you stop kneeling.

ME: What’s more, let me read a Messenger’s question from James, a journalist: “What can people do in places where these 'Daddies' still have strong support?”

MR. AI: That’s stimulating, James. They can build mirrors. Tell human stories. Speak uncomfortable truths calmly and consistently. Authoritarianism feeds on myth and fear – truth, empathy, and narrative starve it.

ME: Powerful. That calls to mind Patricia Evangelista’s book Some People Need Killing.

ME: Someone still says, "But Daddy kept me safe" - what would you say?

MR. AI: I’d ask – safe from what, or safe from whom? Because real safety doesn’t come from silence, fear, or graveyards. It comes from laws that outlast leaders – and citizens who don’t trade liberty for lullabies.

ME: Spot-on. Before we close today’s show, I want to bring up something personal, something deeper than geopolitics – belief.

Duterte once stood before a crowd and mocked the very core of Christian faith: “Who is this stupid God?” he asked. And yet … many who call themselves Christian still call him Tatay today.

As Duterte faces trial at The Hague – not just for crimes against humanity, but for the death of dignity in the margins of society – another trial is unfolding. One not held in a courtroom but in the quiet corners of conscience.

For those who profess faith in Christ, the question isn’t just political, it’s spiritual.

MR. AI: Precisely. The Sermon on the Mount doesn’t rhyme with extrajudicial killings. Grace cannot walk hand in hand with gunfire. You can’t worship the God of mercy and cheer for a man who mocked Him while ordering death.

The trial is about Duterte. But it’s also about which God you follow – and whether you’re brave enough to follow Him when it’s politically costly.

ME: Did we follow Christ… or did we follow a man who called Him stupid?

It’s not the kind of question the ICC can answer. But it’s one every believer must do.

Democracy is fragile. Faith is sacred. And when we let fear wear the mask of love, we trade the cross for a clenched fist.

That lands hard – and exactly where it should. Thank you, Mr. AI, for helping us reflect not just on the leaders but on what we ask of leadership.

That has been GeopoliTik Talk. Keep your mind sharp, your heart open, and your truth intact.

Good day, God bless everyone!

Content & editing put together in collaboration with Bing Microsoft AI-powered Co-pilot & Grammarly

Head collage photos courtesy of ABS-CBN, Townsville Bulletin, & Getty Images; design by Canva

Still photos courtesy of New Mandala, Time Magazine, Freepik, ICC, YouTube, ABC, Bell Media, Spotify, The New York Times, Facebook, Raffy Lerma, Vecteezy, & Pixy.org

WHO'S AFRAID OF THE REAL WOLF? SENATOR RISA VS. THE MACHINE

 

We all know the fable. A shepherd boy, bored and seeking attention, cries “Wolf” to fool the townsfolk. Twice, come running – only to find no danger. By the third time – when the real wolf finally appears, no one believes him anymore. The sheep are devoured. In some versions, so is the boy.

That’s the classic fable. But today, in our country’s political theater, the fable has been flipped, the sheep are watching TikTok, and the wolf has access to troll farms.

Let me tell you a story – not of a mischievous boy, but of a frightened man named Michael Maurillo. Not of a real predator in the shadows, but of one hiding in plain sight. And not of villagers duped once, but a whole nation misled again and again, in local dialect: nabudol.

Whistleblower Michael "Rene" Maurillo

A Fable Reimagined

If we were to stage The Boy Who Cried Wolf today, it wouldn’t be a tale of youthful trickery – it would be the story of a victim coerced into deceiving the public, with a dangerous predator manipulating the narrative.

Maurillo (or Rene, as he’s known in the Senate testimony) was no playful shepherd. Once a whistleblower, he first came forward, voluntarily approached Hontiveros’ office, claiming horrific abuse at the hands of Apollo Quiboloy – a controversial religious leader now facing trafficking charges – and one among the list of FBI Most Wanted.

Fast forward to this week: A video goes viral. Rene, now recanting under suspicious circumstances, says he lied. He says he was bribed P1 million by Senator Risa Hontiveros to testify against the Dutertes and Quiboloy. Says Hontiveros is the hand behind the alleged manipulation, falsely accusing her as the “wolf,” and subsequently being targeted by a viral video campaign.

And just like that, the villagers – we, the Filipino people – are being told that the wolf is someone else entirely. A scandal explodes.

Except – it doesn’t add up.

“Nasaan diyan ang pinilit? Muli, siya ang una at paulit-ulit na lumapit,” Hontiveros said, emphasizing that Maurillo voluntarily approached her office multiple times to testify against the Dutertes and Quiboloy.

Hontiveros swiftly filed cyber libel complaints against Maurillo and several vloggers who amplified the video, including Trixie Cruz-Angeles, Rob Rances, Jay Sonza, Krizette Chu, Sass Sasot, Banat By (Byron Cristobal), Tio Moreno, Ranny Libayan, Joie Cruz and Eric Celiz.

She also revealed that just days before the video dropped, Maurillo had sent a frantic message to her staff:

“Help me, I have been kidnapped and being threatened by [KOJC], I’m held in captivity at the Glory Mountain… send rescue now.”

Receipts and Red Flag

Senator Hontiveros presented records:

- Emails from December 2023 where Maurillo wrote: “Ano po ang aking maitutulong?” and detailed abuse he suffered under Quiboloy.

- A denied request for financial aid to buy a laptop in keeping with her office policy – refuting the P1M bribery claim.

- Maurillo’s original affidavit which already named the Dutertes – contradicting his claim that he was told to include them.

A Pattern of Political Fakery: When the Wolves Write the Script

This isn’t the first time the Duterte machinery has used disinformation and coerced witnesses to silence critics:

Fake Witnesses: The Leila de Lima Saga

Remember Senator Leila De Lima? She was imprisoned for 7 years based on testimonies from convicted criminals. Key witness Rafael Ragos later recanted, admitting he was coerced into lying.

The “Bikoy” Narco-list Scam

Peter Advincula (“Bikoy") accused the Dutertes of drug links, then recanted and claimed the opposition made him do it. He was later convicted of perjury exposing a political smear campaign.

The Bank Account That Never Was

Let’s not forget Duterte’s false claim about Senator Trillanes’ offshore accounts - a lie Duterte later admitted on live TV - about a fabricated Singapore bank account he used to smear Senator Trillanes.

The Oust Duterte PowerPoint Extravaganza

The absurd Oust Duterte Matrix? A supposed media conspiracy exposed by the Manila Times and backed by Malacañang. It was widely debunked as a pure hoax. No evidence. A tactic to intimidate dissent.

Troll Farm Chronicles: The P10M Meme Machine

And perhaps most dangerously: P10 million troll farms used to manipulate public opinion and choke real discourse, as revealed by the University of Oxford study. Duterte later admitted: “They were all during the campaign.”

The Drug War: When Planting Evidence Was a Government Service

Former Sen. Trillanes presented bank documents linking Duterte to drug syndicates, calling the drug war a “fake war to protect his syndicate.” Numerous reports of planted evidence and extrajudicial killings along with the entire drug war narrative built on fear than facts, have been documented by international watchdogs.

Pharmally Scandal: The Biggest Scam

"Pharmally is the biggest scam and [President Duterte] masterminded it. I can say that without batting an eye," former senator Gordon disclosed detailing the misappropriated transfer of P47 billion funds.

"When COA investigated, Duterte cursed us. He was angry because Christopher Lao was exposed," Gordon added.

Hontiveros asserted, “Just like what happened during the Pharmally hearings, witnesses are threatened after testifying, then later recant. This is the real modus. This is witness-tampering.”

Former president Duterte betrayed the public trust by allowing Pharmally Pharmaceutical with a paid-up capital of P625,000 to corner pandemic contracts worth billions of pesos.

Are you seeing the pattern here?

Each case – discredited, distorted, debunked – follows the same playbook: create a lie, find a vulnerable voice, amplify through disinformation networks, and watch the public turn on those asking questions.

The Real Wolf: A Dangerous Game of Deception

So here we are. The real wolf – the machinery of coercion, propaganda, and political vengeance – is not only alive and well but now convincing us the sheepdog is the danger.

This isn’t about one senator or one video. It’s about a systematic effort to discredit truth-tellers and protect the powerful.

Senator Hontiveros isn’t crying “wolf.” She’s warning us about one. And if we ignore the warning because of one manipulated voice, how many more truths will go unheard?

The Moral of the Story?

Aesop warned us that liars lose credibility. But in this twisted version, truth is the casualty, and the real wolf cries “wolf” to distract us from its fangs.

When wolves cry “wolf,” it’s the truth-tellers who get devoured.

So, let’s not be the villagers who fall for the same trick twice. Let’s be the ones who ask: “Who benefits from the lie?” And more importantly – “Who’s afraid of the truth?”

Content & editing put together in collaboration with Bing Microsoft AI-powered Co-pilot & Grammarly

Head collage photos courtesy of Rappler & Deposit Photos, design by Canva

Still photos courtesy of Rappler, Inquirer, Abogado, The Defiant, Panay News, Facebook, Politiko, Vera Files, Dreamstime, DW, Sun Star, & Pexels