*Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD, DM
There was a time when I was having coffee with a few friends after a lecture on political leadership. As expected, the conversation drifted toward politics. One of them suddenly asked me, “Sir, bakit ganoon? Minsan habang mas maraming problema ang isang politiko, lalo namang sumisikat?”
Napangiti ako.
I told them, “Because Philippine politics is not governed by logic alone. It is also governed by emotion.”
The Filipino voter is unique. Hindi lang tayo bumoboto gamit ang isip. Maraming pagkakataon, ang puso ang unang bumoboto bago ang utak. Kapag may nakita tayong taong tila inaapi o dehado, natural sa ating kultura ang maawa. At ang awa, kapag lumalim, nagiging simpatya. Ang simpatya, kapag naging malawak, puwedeng maging boto.
That is one of the most fascinating realities of Philippine politics.
Let me be candid.
I have never considered myself a loyal follower of Rep. Rodante Marcoleta. In fact, there were times when I found his style in congressional hearings and later in the Senate too confrontational. Minsan nga, naaasar pa ako sa kanyang mahahabang interpellation. Hindi iyon ang klase ng political style na personal kong gusto.
But political analysis demands objectivity.
Bilang political analyst, hindi dapat personal ang pagsusuri. Hindi dapat nakabatay sa gusto o ayaw natin sa isang tao. Ang mahalaga ay maintindihan natin kung paano mag-isip ang taumbayan.
And that is exactly what I am seeing today.
Regardless of one’s political affiliation, one cannot ignore that the public conversation surrounding Marcoleta has changed. Hindi na lang usapin kung tama o mali ang mga legal na isyu. Unti-unti, may mga Pilipinong nagsisimulang tumingin sa kanya bilang isang taong dumaraan sa matinding pagsubok. Whether that perception is accurate or not is another discussion altogether. But politically, perception has power.
History teaches us that legal controversies do not always destroy political careers.
Sometimes…
They build them.
We have seen this not only in the Philippines but in many democracies around the world. Political adversity has, on several occasions, produced unexpected political momentum. A politician who was once known only to a particular constituency suddenly becomes a national figure because everyone is talking about him.
Visibility creates familiarity.
Familiarity sometimes creates sympathy.
And sympathy can eventually become political capital.
This is not a legal conclusion.
This is my political analysis.
The same dynamic, in my opinion, is also unfolding in the impeachment proceedings involving Vice President Sara Duterte.
As I have written in my previous essays, I do not believe the impeachment trial is being watched only by the senator-judges. Every hearing is also being watched by millions of Filipinos. Every opening statement, every objection, every press conference, every exchange inside the Senate is simultaneously being presented before another audience—the Filipino people.
That is why I have consistently maintained that the impeachment trial has two courtrooms.
The first courtroom is inside the Senate.
The second courtroom is inside the living rooms of millions of Filipino families.
From my perspective, many of the narratives being presented by the defense are not directed solely toward persuading the senator-judges. They also appear designed to resonate with ordinary Filipinos who are following the proceedings through television, radio, YouTube, Facebook, and TikTok.
Again, that is my interpretation as a student of political communication.
Whether one agrees with that interpretation or not is part of healthy democratic discourse.
If Vice President Sara Duterte survives the impeachment process, the entire impeachment itself may eventually become part of her political narrative. Instead of weakening her, it could strengthen the emotional connection she has with supporters and even with some undecided voters who may view her as someone who endured a difficult political battle.
Politics has always been about narratives.
But now, another narrative is emerging.
The national attention surrounding Marcoleta has likewise elevated his political visibility. Whether his legal issues are ultimately resolved in his favor or otherwise will be determined by the proper legal institutions through due process. That process must be respected. But from a purely political standpoint, there is no denying that his name is now part of everyday political conversations.
And in politics, relevance is currency.
As a political analyst, I have learned never to underestimate how quickly alliances and electoral dynamics can change. For that reason, I would not be surprised if political observers eventually begin discussing the possibility of an Inday Sara–Marcoleta tandem for 2028—if Vice President Sara Duterte successfully navigates her current political challenges and if Marcoleta likewise resolves his legal issues through the proper legal process.
This is not a prediction.
It is not an endorsement.
It is simply one possible political scenario based on recurring patterns in Philippine politics, where adversity sometimes creates momentum instead of ending it.
Whether such a tandem would eventually materialize is another matter.
Whether the Filipino people would embrace it is an even bigger question.
Only history can answer that.
This entire discussion also brings me back to one principle that I have consistently advocated through Integritocracy.
Justice must never be selective.
Hindi dapat depende sa political color.
Hindi dapat depende kung administration o opposition.
Hindi dapat depende kung kaibigan o kalaban.
If there is sufficient evidence against any public official, then let the law take its course.
But the same standard must apply equally to everyone.
Kapag ang taumbayan ay nakakakita na tila may mga kasong mabilis umusad habang ang iba ay tila hindi man lamang naaabot ng parehong antas ng imbestigasyon, natural lamang na magkaroon ng mga tanong. Whether those perceptions are accurate or not, they influence public trust in institutions.
An Integritocracy demands consistency.
It demands equal accountability.
It demands equal justice.
Because justice that appears selective can unintentionally produce the very political consequence it never intended.
Instead of weakening a politician, it may strengthen the sympathy surrounding that politician.
And in Philippine politics, sympathy has always been one of the most powerful political currencies.
At the end of the day, elections are not won inside courtrooms.
Neither are they won inside Senate hearing rooms.
They are won inside the hearts and minds of ordinary Filipinos.
History has repeatedly reminded us that today’s controversy can become tomorrow’s campaign story.
Today’s legal challenge can become tomorrow’s narrative of resilience.
Whether that ultimately happens in 2028 remains uncertain.
But if there is one lesson Philippine politics has consistently taught us, it is this:
Never underestimate the political power of sympathy, and never underestimate the Filipino voter’s capacity to transform adversity into opportunity.
#DJOT
*****************************************
_______________________________________
Dear friends,
*About the author:
