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 Politics Avoids the Courts: Bakit Malabong Dalhin ni Alan Peter Cayetano ang Senate Leadership Controversy sa Supreme Court

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

One of the most interesting aspects of the ongoing Senate leadership controversy is that the biggest constitutional question may never actually reach the Supreme Court. Ironically, ang pinakaimportanteng constitutional issue ay maaaring manatiling isang political debate lamang, hindi dahil walang legal issue, kundi dahil maaaring walang pangunahing political actor ang gustong ipasok ito sa judicial arena.

The recent dismissal by the Supreme Court of the petition filed by an ordinary citizen serves as an important reminder of how constitutional litigation works. Hindi sinabi ng Korte Suprema na legal ang June 3 Senate session. Hindi rin nito sinabi na illegal ito. Hindi rin nito kinilala kung sino ang tunay na Senate President. Ang sinabi lamang ng Korte ay walang legal standing ang petitioner, kaya hindi nito maaaring resolbahin ang constitutional issues na nakapaloob sa kaso.

Napakahalagang maintindihan ang distinction na ito.

A dismissal for lack of legal standing is not a decision on the merits. Procedural ang naging ruling ng Supreme Court, hindi substantive. In other words, the Court never answered the constitutional questions because it never acquired jurisdiction to decide them through a proper petitioner.

Mas lalo nitong pinapatibay ang isang constitutional principle: the Supreme Court cannot ordinarily issue a motu proprio decision to settle the Senate leadership controversy. Hindi maaaring kusang magdesisyon ang Korte Suprema kung sino ang legitimate Senate President kung walang actual case filed by a party with proper legal standing. Hindi advisory body ang Supreme Court. It is a constitutional court that resolves actual controversies brought before it.

Dito ngayon pumapasok ang political analysis.

Sa aking pananaw, isa sa pinakamalaking dahilan kung bakit malabong makarating ang isyung ito sa Supreme Court ay dahil walang political incentive ang dalawang pangunahing kampo na dalhin ito roon.

More specifically, I believe that Alan Peter Cayetano himself has very little incentive to elevate this controversy to the Supreme Court.

Why?

Because once the controversy reaches the Court, politics gives way to constitutional law.

Sa kasalukuyan, ang laban ay nasa larangan ng political narratives. Habang walang final ruling ang Supreme Court, maaaring ipagpatuloy ang narrative na siya ang “legitimate” Senate President na umano’y napatalsik sa pamamagitan ng political maneuvering. Maaari ring ipagpatuloy ang narrative na mayroon umanong dalawang Senado—ang “Senate of the Philippines” at ang tinatawag niyang “Senate of Malacañang.” Whether one agrees or disagrees with this characterization, it undeniably functions as a political message designed to persuade supporters.

But once the matter is brought before the Supreme Court, that narrative faces its greatest risk.

Kung sakaling mag-file si Senator Cayetano ng petition at magdesisyon ang Supreme Court na constitutional ang June 3 proceedings, maaaring mawala ang legal foundation ng kanyang political narrative. Ang usapin ay hindi na magiging debate sa social media, press conferences, o political rallies. Magiging constitutional adjudication na ito, at ang magiging batayan ay ang Konstitusyon, jurisprudence, Senate Rules, at parliamentary precedents.

Sa madaling salita, the Court could potentially end the narrative.

At dito ko nakikita kung bakit maaaring piliin ng kampo ni Senator Cayetano na huwag dalhin ang usapin sa Korte Suprema.

Because politically, an unresolved controversy can sometimes be more valuable than a resolved one.

As long as there is no final judicial ruling, the narrative remains alive. May pagkakataon pa ring sabihin na siya ang tunay na Senate President. May pagkakataon pa ring igiit na ang nangyari ay isang political takeover. Sa political arena, perception often matters as much as legal certainty.

Conversely, the camp of Senator Sherwin Gatchalian also appears to have little practical reason to seek judicial confirmation of its authority.

Sa kasalukuyan, ang leadership na kanyang kinakatawan ay patuloy na kinikilala sa actual operations ng gobyerno. Senate employees continue to perform their duties under the existing leadership. Government agencies continue to coordinate with the recognized Senate leadership. Maging ang iba’t ibang sangay ng gobyerno ay nakikipag-ugnayan sa kasalukuyang leadership sa ordinary course of official business.

Kung ikaw ang kasalukuyang kinikilalang namumuno at tuloy-tuloy ang operasyon ng institusyon, natural lamang na mabawasan ang urgency na humingi pa ng judicial declaration.

From a litigation perspective, courts usually exist to remedy an injury. Ngunit kung wala namang immediate deprivation of authority from the perspective of the incumbent leadership, maaaring hindi rin nila makita ang practical necessity na mag-file ng petition.

This creates what I consider a constitutional paradox.

Neither side appears to have a compelling political incentive to seek a definitive judicial ruling.

One side may fear losing its political narrative.

The other side may feel that it already possesses sufficient institutional recognition.

As a result, ang constitutional issue ay nananatiling buhay sa politika ngunit hindi umaabot sa constitutional adjudication.

Interestingly, former Chief Justice Antonio Carpio has also publicly expressed constitutional views regarding the numerical requirements for Senate leadership. His interpretation has been cited in public discussions as supporting a different reading of the constitutional numbers. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his analysis, his opinion contributes to the broader constitutional debate. Nevertheless, tulad ng lahat ng legal commentaries, persuasive lamang ito at hindi binding precedent hangga’t hindi ito ina-adopt ng Supreme Court sa isang actual decision.

At ito ang isa pang mahalagang punto.

Without a proper petition filed by a party with legal standing, the Supreme Court may never have the opportunity to settle these competing constitutional interpretations.

Ang magiging resulta ay isang prolonged political contest instead of a constitutional resolution.

Sa aking pananaw, ito ang tunay na panganib.

Kapag ang constitutional disputes ay hindi nareresolba ng constitutional institutions, mas nagiging dependent ang publiko sa political narratives kaysa sa judicial interpretation. Ang legal certainty ay napapalitan ng propaganda, at ang constitutional legitimacy ay unti-unting natatabunan ng political messaging.

This does not automatically mean there will be destabilization. However, prolonged institutional uncertainty may contribute to heightened political polarization if competing claims of legitimacy continue without judicial clarification. For this reason, constitutional democracies generally encourage that serious institutional disputes eventually be resolved through lawful constitutional processes.

Ultimately, ang pinaka-interesting na bahagi ng buong controversy ay hindi kung sino ang tama o mali sa constitutional arguments. Ang mas malaking tanong ay kung bakit tila walang gustong ipaubaya ang usapin sa institusyong may final authority na magdesisyon—ang Supreme Court.

Sa aking political assessment, Alan Peter Cayetano is unlikely to elevate this controversy to the Supreme Court. The political risks are simply too great. A final constitutional ruling against his position could permanently weaken the very narrative that presently sustains his political campaign. Habang walang judicial decision, nananatiling buhay ang debate, nananatiling buhay ang narrative, at nananatiling bukas ang political battlefield.

Samantala, ang kampo ni Senator Sherwin Gatchalian ay maaari ring makita na wala silang agarang pangangailangan na humingi pa ng judicial affirmation dahil sa kasalukuyang institutional recognition na kanilang tinatamasa.

Kung mananatili ang ganitong sitwasyon, ang Senate leadership controversy may continue to be fought in the court of public opinion rather than in the Supreme Court.

At sa huli, iyon marahil ang pinakamalaking irony ng buong isyu. Ang tanging institusyon na may kapangyarihang magbigay ng pinal at binding na constitutional interpretation ay maaaring hindi kailanman mabigyan ng pagkakataong magsalita, hindi dahil wala itong kapangyarihan, kundi dahil maaaring walang pangunahing political actor ang handang isugal ang kanilang political narrative sa isang final na constitutional judgment.

________________________________________________________________

*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: 2.37M