Marcoleta and the Politics of Sympathy: Can his Plunder Case Controversy Become Political Capital in 2028?

 *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,

I am thrilled to share that my latest book about "Integritocracy" is now available on Amazon! Writing this has been a deeply fulfilling journey, but what makes this milestone truly special is the purpose behind it.

I have decided that the proceeds from the sales of this book will go entirely toward a worthy charitable cause close to my heart: funding academic scholarships for deserving and underprivileged students.

Education has the power to transform lives, and by purchasing a copy, you aren't just getting a new read—you are directly helping to pave the way for a bright student's future.

If you would like to support this mission and grab your copy, you can find it directly on Amazon here:

Click this get a copy at AMAZON

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

*About the author:

Dr. Rodolfo “John” Ortiz Teope is a distinguished Filipino academic, public intellectual, and advocate for civic education and public safety, whose work spans local academies and international security circles. With a career rooted in teaching, research, policy, and public engagement, he bridges theory and practice by making meaningful contributions to academic discourse, civic education, and public policy. Dr. Teope is widely respected for his critical scholarship in education, management, economics, doctrine development, and public safety; his grassroots involvement in government and non-government organizations; his influential media presence promoting democratic values and civic consciousness; and his ethical leadership grounded in Filipino nationalism and public service. As a true public intellectual, he exemplifies how research, advocacy, governance, and education can work together in pursuit of the nation’s moral and civic mission.

VIEWS: 2.42M

When One Man’s Battle Becomes the Nation’s Burden: A Statesman’s Choice in the Time of Senate Chaos

*Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD, DM

I remember many years ago, but I am still young at heart and in looks. During my years in public service advocacy and my long exposure to institutions of discipline, governance, and public safety, there was one lesson that quietly stayed with me more than any manual, any doctrine, or any lecture ever could. It was a simple observation about leadership. A real leader knows when to stand and fight, but a greater leader knows when his very presence on the battlefield begins causing unnecessary casualties among people who were never supposed to be part of his war. May mga laban na dapat mong harapin. Ngunit may mga pagkakataon din na ang pinakamatapang na desisyon ay hindi ang lumaban nang patayan, kundi ang umatras upang hindi masunog ang buong bayan.

That thought returns to me now as I look at the deeply disturbing images and narratives surrounding the Senate and the controversy involving Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa. Let me be very clear before anyone misreads this. I am not writing this because I am against Senator Bato dela Rosa. This is not personal. Hindi ito political demolition piece. Hindi ito pagsusulat ng isang tao na may kinikilingan laban sa kanya. I write this as a student of governance, as a public safety thinker, as someone who understands institutions, and perhaps more importantly, as a Filipino who knows how fragile democratic institutions can become when personal battles begin consuming national spaces.

What pains me is not merely the legal controversy. What pains me is the possibility that one man’s legal dilemma could evolve into a national constitutional and institutional crisis. And if that happens, democracy itself becomes the victim. The Senate is not merely a building. It is not just marble halls, microphones, committee rooms, leather chairs, and political theater. It is one of the living institutions of the Republic. It is where laws are shaped, budgets are scrutinized, national security questions are debated, and constitutional accountability mechanisms are activated. It is where the people’s mandate, through elected representatives, becomes governance.

Kapag ang Senado ang natigil, hindi lang mga senador ang apektado. Ang taumbayan ang naaapektuhan. The economy feels uncertainty. Investors observe instability. Government processes slow. Critical laws are delayed. Public trust weakens. And in this very moment, even the constitutional process involving the impeachment accountability mechanism concerning Vice President Sara Duterte could be disrupted. Imagine the irony. A Senate immobilized because of one senator’s personal legal predicament. A constitutional accountability process delayed because another accountability controversy consumes the institution. A Vice President waiting for constitutional due process while the chamber itself becomes politically paralyzed. That is not democratic order. That is institutional collision.

And this is where the painful but necessary conversation on statesmanship must begin. Real statesmen understand sacrifice. Hindi lahat ng laban ay ipinapanalo sa pamamagitan ng pagtatago sa likod ng isang institusyon. Hindi lahat ng pagtatanggol ay kailangang gawing national siege. Hindi lahat ng solidarity ay nangangahulugan na buong bansa ang dapat magdusa para sa personal mong laban. I have heard emotional arguments from supporters saying that Senator Bato should be protected at all costs. That the Senate must stand by its own. That loyalty matters. Of course loyalty matters. Fraternity matters. Institutional respect matters. But constitutional democracy matters more.

Because if the Senate becomes a sanctuary rather than a legislature, then we are no longer protecting democracy. We are distorting it. There is a constitutional distinction that many ordinary citizens understandably miss. The privilege from arrest granted to senators is not absolute immunity. It is conditional. It exists to prevent harassment through lesser offenses, not to create a permanent fortress against all forms of accountability. And even beyond the legal debate, there is a larger moral question. If your presence in an institution begins causing lockdowns, operational paralysis, heightened security confrontation, public fear, political destabilization, and national anxiety, does patriotism not require reflection? Kung tunay kang makabayan, hindi mo ba tatanungin ang sarili mo kung tama pa bang ang buong institusyon ay tila ginagawang fallout shelter para sa personal mong laban?

This is where I think Senate Resolution No. 395 deserves mature interpretation. Some people may emotionally interpret it as abandonment. I do not. I see it differently. I see colleagues, some perhaps even political friends, essentially saying this: “There are remedies. The Constitution still works. The courts still exist. Due process remains available. Use them.” That is not betrayal. That is wisdom. That is the institution quietly reminding one of its members that the Senate exists to legislate, not to become a permanent refuge from legal confrontation.

Because let us be honest. If Senator Bato believes in his innocence, then the justice system remains the proper battlefield. If he believes no crimes against humanity were committed, then due process exists. If he believes the ICC has no jurisdiction, then let lawyers argue that. If he believes domestic courts should intervene first, then let constitutional remedies be pursued. If he believes Philippine sovereignty is at stake, then litigate it. That is how democracies function. Not through institutional paralysis. Not through prolonged political siege. Not through symbolic hostage-taking of governance spaces.

History has shown us this before. Senator Antonio Trillanes IV faced confrontation. Former Senator Leila de Lima endured incarceration. Whatever one’s politics, those moments did not permanently convert the Senate into a sanctuary operation. The institution survived. Because institutions must always survive personalities.

Now comes the more dangerous and deeply troubling aspect. There are reports that the President has denied issuing arrest instructions. Law enforcement agencies reportedly deny direct operational orders. The PNP allegedly says no formal arrest action was theirs. The NBI reportedly denies operational deployment. If true, then every Filipino should be deeply alarmed. Because if no official lawful Philippine authority initiated operational movement, then who exactly are the actors creating this environment of fear?

This is where political behavioral analysis becomes deeply uncomfortable. I am cautious with conspiracy theories because democracies can be destroyed by rumor just as easily as by bullets. But ambiguity itself is dangerous. Kapag hindi malinaw kung sino ang gumagalaw, sino ang may authority, sino ang may utos, doon nagsisimula ang panic. Panic becomes rumor. Rumor becomes online warfare. Online warfare becomes mobilization. Mobilization becomes confrontation. Confrontation becomes blood. And blood becomes political mythology. That is how democracies fracture. That is why immediate clarity matters.

Still, even amid uncertainty, one painful truth remains. The highest act of statesmanship may no longer be resistance. It may be sacrifice. A real patriot asks not merely, “How do I protect myself?” A real patriot asks, “How do I protect the Republic from suffering because of me?” That is a far harder question. Masakit iyon. Because surrender is emotionally interpreted as weakness. But not all surrender is weakness. Sometimes surrender is the strongest constitutional act a statesman can make.

To present oneself to lawful Philippine authority. To challenge the process in the Supreme Court of our nation. To exhaust remedies. To fight legally. To prove innocence transparently. To let the justice system, not institutional chaos, determine the next steps. And only afterward debate the jurisdictional issue of whether any transfer to The Hague is legally permissible. That is civilized constitutional order. That is mature governance. That is leadership.

Because what happens if this chaos continues? The Senate may remain crippled. Sessions may be suspended. Committee work may stop. Critical legislation may be delayed. Budgetary action may suffer. National policy responses may weaken. The impeachment process may be stalled. The economy may react nervously. Investors may interpret instability. International observers may see democratic fragility. And ordinary Filipinos, who are already burdened by inflation, uncertainty, fuel anxieties, and political fatigue, will once again pay the price for elite institutional conflict.

And that is what breaks my heart. Because democracy was never meant to make the people collateral damage in the legal battles of powerful men. I say this not in anger. I say this with sadness. Because I have seen institutions weaken before. I have seen politics consume reason before. I have seen pride prolong crises that could have been resolved by courage of a different kind.

And perhaps that is where Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa now stands. Not merely before a legal dilemma. But before a defining statesman’s choice. Will he choose personal tactical survival? Or national institutional preservation? Because in the end, history rarely remembers who shouted the loudest inside political storms. History remembers who prevented the storm from destroying the house.

 #DJOT

_________________

*About the author:

Dr. Rodolfo “John” Ortiz Teope is a distinguished Filipino academic, public intellectual, and advocate for civic education and public safety, whose work spans local academies and international security circles. With a career rooted in teaching, research, policy, and public engagement, he bridges theory and practice by making meaningful contributions to academic discourse, civic education, and public policy. Dr. Teope is widely respected for his critical scholarship in education, management, economics, doctrine development, and public safety; his grassroots involvement in government and non-government organizations; his influential media presence promoting democratic values and civic consciousness; and his ethical leadership grounded in Filipino nationalism and public service. As a true public intellectual, he exemplifies how research, advocacy, governance, and education can work together in pursuit of the nation’s moral and civic mission.

VIEWS: 4.04M