Fact-Checking Sara Duterte’s Melbourne Posturing (Even If It Makes Me Grit My Teeth)

I didn’t want to write this.

Not because I’m afraid of backlash or short on material. No. The data is there. The contradictions are blatant. What makes this hard is the uncomfortable side effect: when I fact-check Sara Duterte, it ends up sounding like I’m defending the Marcos administration. And I don’t want to do that. Not even a little bit.

I’ve said it before—I’m anti-Duterte and anti-Marcos. Both families have done enough damage, in different ways, under different guises. So this blog isn’t about choosing a side. It’s about holding someone accountable, even when it feels politically inconvenient to do so.

Because Sara Duterte, of all people, has no moral ascendancy to criticize anyone. None.

She speaks of corruption while refusing to explain ₱125 million in confidential funds. She warns of poor governance, yet has no measurable achievements as Vice President or Education Secretary. She accuses others of pandering to the West while cozying up to China every chance she gets. Every word that comes out of her mouth—whether at a rally, on stage, or halfway across the globe—is a mirror. Everything she throws circles back to her.

And this wasn’t a speech. It was posturing.
A carefully planned performance staged in Melbourne, wrapped in drama, grief, and anger—what I once called in a previous Morning Coffee Thoughts blog, political optics. (You can read that piece here).

Sometimes I wonder—does she even believe the things she says? Or is this all for show, para lang makaikot sa mundo at makahanap ng simpatiya abroad? I want to give her the benefit of the doubt, I really do. But then I remember the confidential funds. The unliquidated expenses. The empty speeches. And I go: "Wala na, eh. She did this to herself."

Do I understand her wanting to defend her father? Oo naman. If my father were detained abroad—even if he were guilty—I’d probably do the same. That’s what loyalty does. That’s what love does. The same way Bongbong and Imee will never admit the sins of their father, because doing so would shatter the myth they inherited and built their political lives on.

But I digress.

This post isn't about rage. Kahit nanggagalaiti ako, this is about facts. Sara Duterte took the mic in Melbourne on June 22, 2025, and made a lot of claims. Let’s see how many of them hold up against actual evidence.

Let’s begin.

ICC Accusations: Distorting the Record

During her Melbourne posturing, Sara Duterte painted her father as a victim of a global conspiracy. Her most repeated point? That the International Criminal Court is biased. Specifically, she told the crowd that the ICC targets “vulnerable nationalities,” especially Africans, while ignoring the actions of Western leaders.

“There is some sort of discrimination... bakit walang Western cases? Dahil hindi nila kaya.”
— Sara Duterte, Melbourne, June 22, 2025
(Cebu Daily News)

Let’s call that what it is: an accusation of racism.

She didn’t say the word, but she didn’t need to. The message was loud enough—the ICC only goes after countries like the Philippines and never after powerful white nations. It’s a serious charge, and a clever one. Because if the court can be painted as racially biased, then any legal action it takes—no matter how evidence-based—can be dismissed as prejudice, not justice.

But here’s the thing: that claim doesn’t hold up under actual data.

The ICC Has Gone After Western-Aligned Leaders

Sara’s claim would’ve held weight in, say, 2006. But it's 2025. And in the past few years, the ICC has gone after Benjamin Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant, and Vladimir Putin—all high-profile leaders of powerful nations.
(CNN)

That’s Israel, Russia, and by extension, the West’s strongest military ally in the Middle East. These are not weak or voiceless countries. And yet, the ICC pushed forward. Sara either doesn’t know—or pretends not to know—that these cases exist.

The Real Reason the ICC Can’t Go After Certain Countries? Jurisdiction.

The ICC only has the power to investigate and prosecute crimes that happen:

Within a member state’s territory, or
By nationals of a country that ratified the Rome Statute, which created the ICC
(ICC Official Page)

That means countries like the United States, Russia, China, and Israel—which never joined or later withdrew—are beyond its legal reach, unless the UN Security Council refers a case.

So no, the ICC isn’t ignoring Western crimes. It’s blocked by design. That’s not bias. That’s geopolitics.

African Cases? Many Were Self-Referred

Sara also repeated the old claim that the ICC only targets African leaders. What she didn’t say is that six out of nine of those African cases were referred by African governments themselves, asking the ICC to intervene. Two more came from UN referrals. Only one—Kenya—was initiated independently by the ICC prosecutor.
(Coalition for the ICC)

So who’s targeting who, exactly?

When the ICC Tried to Investigate the U.S., It Got Sanctioned

The ICC did try to probe the U.S. for war crimes in Afghanistan. But what happened? The Trump administration froze assets and blacklisted ICC judges and officials.
(Wilson Center)

The investigation was eventually scaled back. Not because there was no wrongdoing, but because power protects itself. That’s the reality. Sara isn’t just wrong—she’s omitting the part where the real problem is the system her own family has long benefitted from.

This Isn’t About Justice. It’s About Control.

Sara’s argument isn’t legal. It’s emotional. It’s not grounded in fact—it’s a performance, meant to stir resentment and blur the line between legal accountability and political persecution. She’s trying to reframe a case about human rights abuses as a case of discrimination—as if her father’s prosecution were just another instance of imperial bullying.

But that framing collapses under scrutiny.

The ICC isn’t perfect. But it’s the only existing mechanism for international justice that even attempts to hold powerful people accountable for crimes like mass murder and torture. Discrediting it doesn’t protect justice—it protects those trying to run from it.

Economic Criticism: Rants vs. Reports

Another pillar of Sara Duterte’s Melbourne posturing was her takedown of the Philippine economy. She told the crowd that the glowing numbers presented by the Marcos administration were meaningless—that they looked good on paper but didn’t translate to anything real.

“Debt that we don’t see where it’s going, a budget that no one knows how it’s being spent... economic figures that look good on paper but are meaningless in the real world.”
— Sara Duterte, Melbourne, June 22, 2025
(Manila Standard)

Let’s pause here. Kasi totoo naman—life is hard. Prices still feel high, wages haven’t caught up, and the average Filipino family is still stretching every peso. But here’s the thing: acknowledging hardship is one thing. Ignoring data entirely is another.

The Economy Is Growing—And Not Just “on Paper”

The Philippines posted a 5.6% GDP growth in 2024, making it the second fastest-growing economy in Southeast Asia that year.
(DOF)

That growth wasn’t imaginary. It came from real things—strong consumer spending, a rebound in private investment, and yes, major government infrastructure projects. These aren’t abstract numbers—they’re signs of a recovering economy after the pandemic and supply shocks.

And unless Sara has better economic data than the Department of Finance, National Economic and Development Authority, and the World Bank, she’s just making noise.

Inflation Is Down. Significantly.

Let’s talk inflation—one of the biggest pain points for ordinary Filipinos.

• 2023: Average inflation was 6.0%

• 2024: It went down to 3.2%, well within the government’s target

• May 2025: Inflation dropped further to 1.3%, the lowest since November 2019
  (PSA, Trading Economics)

That’s not a PR spin. That’s the result of policy, monetary adjustments, and global stabilization. To dismiss that as “meaningless” is either dishonest or dangerously ignorant.

Build Better More: Real Plans. Real Projects.

Sara claimed that there’s “no plan”—no vision. But there is. You just have to look beyond the podium.

The Build Better More program approved 194 infrastructure projects worth ₱9 trillion, with 123 of those launched under the Marcos administration.
(Inquirer)

We’re talking about:

• The Metro Manila Subway

• North-South Commuter Railway

• Road networks in underserved regions

• Flood control, bridges, and logistics hubs
  
  

These aren’t pipe dreams. These are decades-long backlogs finally moving forward.

And What Exactly Is Sara’s Economic Legacy?

Let’s flip the script for a second.

Sara Duterte says there’s “no vision.” But has she ever outlined one? As Vice President? As DepEd Secretary? As former Davao City mayor?

Because if you’re going to tear down another administration’s numbers, you better be prepared to show your own. As far as the public record goes, her economic resume is blank. Wala man lang pilot program. Wala ring economic framework. Not even a basic inflation relief proposal during her time in national office.

Bottom Line: Emotion Can’t Replace Evidence

It’s fair to criticize the disconnect between economic indicators and daily struggles. But that criticism needs to be informed, not performative.

Sara Duterte stood onstage in Melbourne and dismissed all measurable progress as irrelevant—because it didn’t suit the image she’s trying to paint. But if you’re running for higher office or trying to reshape public opinion, you don’t get to cherry-pick what counts as “real.”

Hard truth: if the Marcos administration is moving the needle, you can’t just wave that away because you’re angry.

You either match the data—or you get left behind.

Budget Transparency: False Alarm

Another point Sara Duterte leaned heavily on during her Melbourne appearance was the supposed lack of transparency in the Marcos administration’s budgeting.

“Debt that we don’t see where it's going, a budget that no one knows how it's being spent, ending up in politicized aid programs.”
— Sara Duterte, June 22, 2025
(Manila Standard)

Let’s be honest—those lines land because we’ve all asked versions of that question. “Saan na napunta ang buwis natin?” But when Sara says it, she isn’t asking. She’s accusing. And her accusations crumble under even the most basic scrutiny.

What She Didn't Say: EO No. 29 and IFMIS Rollout

President Marcos signed Executive Order No. 29 on June 1, 2023, requiring all government agencies to adopt the Integrated Financial Management Information System (IFMIS)—a unified digital platform to track public funds in real time.
(Lawphil, DBM)

The system aims to standardize budgeting, accounting, cash management, and procurement processes across agencies. It also digitizes fund movement and disbursement, and is designed to eventually link all transactions to open-data platforms accessible to the public.

Let’s be real—this is the boring part of the article. These are government programs that rarely trend or get anyone riled up. They don’t go viral. They don’t earn headlines. And they certainly don’t get talked about by Sara Duterte, who couldn’t even bother to dig up facts before getting onstage. But then again, why would she? If the information doesn’t serve her optics, it’s invisible to her.

Oversight Is Built In

EO 29 also created a Public Financial Management Committee composed of DBM, DOF, COA, and BTr. Their task is to implement a five-year reform roadmap, monitor agency compliance, and push digitalization across all financial workflows.
(PNA, GMA)

BTMS: The Digital Backbone

In December 2024, the DBM launched the Budget Treasury Management System (BTMS)—a real-time digital dashboard for fund tracking.

“With the launch of the BTMS, we are laying the foundation for the Integrated Financial Management Information Systems,”
said Budget Secretary Pangandaman.
(Malaya)

It is currently being used to monitor disbursements, digitize approvals and fund releases, and synchronize transactions with cash-based budgeting standards.

Procurement Reform Is Happening Too

In July 2024, President Marcos signed Republic Act 12009, the New Government Procurement Act, which shortens procurement timelines from 90 to 60 days and eliminates long-standing corruption loopholes.
(GMA)

In May 2024, the DBM also met with World Bank officials to expand IFMIS integration through PhilGEPS, the government’s electronic procurement portal.
(PhilGEPS)

These efforts are part of a broader Public Financial Management Reforms Roadmap (2024–2028) that includes digital finance, transparent procurement, and unified accounting systems.
(DOF)

LGUs Are Being Pulled Into the Loop

As of May 2025, the DILG issued a directive requiring all local government units to adopt electronic payment systems for official transactions—extending financial traceability to the local level.
(GMA)

Meanwhile, Her Own Budget Remains a Black Hole

In August 2024, the Commission on Audit issued Notice of Disallowance No. 2024-002-100 to Sara Duterte, flagging ₱73.287 million out of her ₱125 million confidential fund for 2022.
(Manila Bulletin)

The breakdown included ₱10 million for “rewards,” ₱34.8 million for “various goods,” ₱24.9 million for “medicines,” and ₱3.5 million for office furniture and computers. COA cited a “non-submission of documents evidencing the success of information gathering and/or surveillance activities.”

During her House hearing that same month, she refused to answer congressional questions about the flagged spending.
(GMA)

Sara Duterte’s display in Melbourne painted the government as opaque and reckless. But when it comes to actual data and actual reforms, her rhetoric collapses. And as we’ll see in the next section, this habit of ignoring facts isn’t limited to financial systems.

Food Security – Her Ignorance Is Loud

In Melbourne, Sara Duterte didn’t just rant about numbers. She escalated. This time, she declared that the current administration has done nothing—and she meant nothing—for food security or Filipino farmers.

“We don’t take care of our farmers. We don’t have a food security plan, and it is already the midterm of this administration, with no plans of doing plans, of creating plans. Nothing.”
— Sara Duterte, June 22, 2025
(Straits Times)

It’s the kind of statement designed to sound explosive, but when you scratch the surface, it’s just empty noise. Because the reality? The government has not only invested in agriculture—it’s laid out targets, budget lines, aid programs, and a long-term food security roadmap. She just didn’t mention any of it. Or maybe she doesn’t know. Either way, the ignorance was loud.

Farmers Were Funded—She Just Didn’t Care to Check

In 2024, the Department of Agriculture was allocated ₱197.84 billion—a 6% increase from the previous year. This isn’t a symbolic number. It funded:

• ₱30.9 billion for the National Rice Program

• ₱10 billion for the Rice Competitiveness Enhancement Fund

• ₱32,000 in cash grants for farmers under the Agri-Puhunan at Pantawid program
  A National Food Authority commitment to buy palay at ₱21 per kilo, ensuring better farmgate prices
  (DBM, PIA)
  
  

This isn’t hidden. It’s published, reported, discussed. But if it doesn’t serve Sara’s spin, she treats it like it doesn’t exist.

There Is a Plan. In Fact, There’s a Whole Roadmap.

The Philippines has a clear, measurable target for rice self-sufficiency by 2027. The plan involves hitting 24.99 to 26.86 million metric tons of domestic rice supply annually, supported by:

• Mechanization and precision farming

• Climate-resilient crop research

• Expanded crop insurance coverage

• Smart tech integration in rural areas
  (The Star)
  

There’s a food security plan. There’s funding. There’s execution. Sara’s speech ignored all of it.

Price Stabilization and Logistics Are Also in Motion

To protect consumers and farmers alike, the government also:

• Set up Kadiwa ng Pangulo stores to bring lower-priced goods directly to communities

• Built and rehabilitated cold storage facilities and farm-to-market roads

• Coordinated with cooperatives and the private sector to stabilize supply chains and reduce middlemen abuse
  (PIA)
  
  

These aren’t perfect solutions—but to call it “nothing” is just a lazy lie.

But Let’s Be Honest: Farmers Are Suffering

And this is where Sara could’ve said something real—but didn’t.

Because even with all these programs, Filipino farmers are still struggling. In early 2025, the average farmgate price of palay dropped to ₱20.69 per kilo—a 17% drop from the previous year. In some areas, prices fell by more than 25% (Rice News Today).

The agriculture sector contracted 2.2% in Q4 of 2024, marking the third consecutive quarterly decline. (Reuters)

Farmers remain among the poorest sectors in the country, with poverty incidence at 31.6% as of 2018—nearly double the national average. (Wikipedia)

Add to that the fact that up to 50% of their harvest gets lost postharvest due to lack of proper facilities and storage. (Invest Guiding)

So yes, even with programs in place, the pain is real. Farmers are still vulnerable—undervalued, underpaid, and one bad harvest away from debt.

That’s the part Sara missed—not the part where nothing’s happening, but the part where what’s happening isn’t enough.

And the Irony? She Sat in a Seat of Power and Did Nothing With It

Sara Duterte served as Vice Chair of the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC)—the same body that red-tagged farmers’ groups and harassed rural organizers under the guise of counter-insurgency. So no, she doesn’t get to paint herself as a voice for farmers now.

You don’t get to pretend to fight for the people you once helped silence.

Sara’s words in Melbourne weren’t rooted in oversight—they were built on erasure. And the people she erased? The same farmers she claims to speak for. This wasn’t a critique of the administration. It was a performance of outrage, with no intention of doing the homework.

And really—how would she even know these details? She’s gallivanting around the world, hopping from rally to rally, from sympathy tour to press conference. She is everywhere except where she needs to be: in the office, working. Doing the hard, quiet, boring work of understanding policies before tearing them down.

Foreign Policy – Misplaced Fear, Misused Platform

Somewhere in the middle of her rally, Sara Duterte swerved into foreign policy, declaring that the Philippines should stay neutral and that there's “no reason” to lean toward the U.S.

“There is no reason for you to lean towards the U.S... You should always stay in the middle because you are not part of the bigger conflict.”
— Sara Duterte, Melbourne, June 22, 2025
(Straits Times)

To be clear: this is the same person who spent much of her public life smiling politely beside U.S. military officials, supporting EDCA joint exercises, and benefiting from defense arrangements she now criticizes.

So when she says “stay in the middle,” the question is—in the middle of what?

This Isn't a Secret Deal. It’s EDCA—and We Signed It

The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) was signed in 2014 under President Aquino. It allows the U.S. to rotate troops and deploy equipment through pre-agreed Philippine military bases, with full transparency and coordination.

Under EDCA:

• The Philippines retains ownership of all facilities
  
  

• The U.S. cannot act unilaterally—all activity requires government approval
  
  

• Nuclear weapons are explicitly prohibited
  (DFA)
  
  

In other words, this isn’t blind loyalty. It’s a calculated partnership—one that gives us defense leverage while keeping sovereignty intact.

The Typhon System: Defensive, Not Offensive

Sara made it sound like we’ve been pulled into a war. In truth, the Typhon missile system is part of a non-nuclear, mobile deterrent stationed temporarily in the Philippines. It’s designed to respond quickly to threats—not to provoke them.

Its deployment was coordinated with the Philippine government, and its relocation in 2024 was done at our request, not the U.S.'s.
(Eurasian Times)

If that’s what she calls “leaning,” then it’s a strategic lean—toward protecting our shores.

China’s Not Exactly Sitting Still

What Sara conveniently ignores is the one nation that is leaning aggressively: China.

They’ve been:

• Blasting our coast guard with military-grade lasers

• Using water cannons to harass our supply missions

• Continuing militarized reclamation in disputed territories
  
  

Neutrality doesn’t work when one party is already violating your borders. If we stay “in the middle,” we end up cornered.

And Let’s Not Forget—She Used to Support All This

As Vice President, Sara Duterte attended EDCA-supported joint activities, made friendly appearances alongside U.S. defense leaders, and raised zero objections to base access. But now that she’s on a global campaign trail, she’s suddenly against it?

So which is it? Were you fine with EDCA until it stopped fitting the story?

And just a few months ago, when asked to comment on China’s water cannon assaults in the West Philippine Sea, Sara Duterte had nothing to say. Literally. She told reporters “no comment,” then deferred to her brother’s prepared statement, claiming it wasn’t her role as Vice President to weigh in on foreign policy
(Manila Bulletin).

Her brother even doubled down, saying it wasn’t the VP’s job to “demonize China or any country”
(Filipino Times).

So what changed?

Because now she’s on a stage overseas, openly criticizing the Philippines' alignment with the U.S., accusing the government of picking sides, and calling for neutrality—as if EDCA isn’t part of our existing foreign policy, and as if she hasn’t actively benefited from that partnership before.

You can’t refuse to speak when China harasses our vessels, then suddenly develop strong opinions when it’s politically convenient.

This Wasn’t the Place for This

The rally in Melbourne was supposed to be about her father. But she used it to attack national defense strategy. She stood in front of 3,000 people and turned a personal mission into a public tantrum—one that could be replayed, quoted, and weaponized by foreign media.

You don’t question national defense policy on a stage in a foreign country if you understand what diplomacy even means.

Regret and Revisionism – When the Bet Goes Bad

Near the end of her Melbourne speech, Sara Duterte let a quiet confession slip:

“Unfortunately, I did not bet properly with my running mate.”
— Sara Duterte, June 22, 2025 (Straits Times)

No shouting. No dramatics. Just a single sentence that carried everything: regret, frustration, and blame-shifting. On paper, it sounds like humility. But if you follow her trajectory since 2022, it’s not an apology.

It’s self-preservation.

This wasn’t about introspection. This was about washing her hands of a decision that backfired.

This Isn’t Regret. It’s Positioning.

Sara Duterte said she believed Bongbong Marcos “wanted a better legacy than his father.” That was the pitch. That was the fantasy. Now that the numbers, headlines, and cracks in their alliance are undeniable, she wants distance.

But let’s be honest. Regret only matters when it comes with accountability. And that’s not what she’s offering. She’s not saying “we got it wrong.” She’s saying “he tricked me.”

Which, ironically, tells us more about her than him.

What Was She Promised? The “Continuation” She Thought She Signed Up For

Sara Duterte didn’t just misjudge Bongbong Marcos. She misjudged the terms of their alliance. She believed she was campaigning for the continuation of her father’s legacy—a second term in spirit, if not in title. And it’s not speculation—she’s said it herself.

In 2022, she framed their campaign as the “face of continuity of the reforms started by the administration of President Duterte — Build, Build, Build and fighting illegal drugs”
(Inquirer).

She expected Marcos to uphold her father’s most controversial policies. She believed it enough to go all-in on the UniTeam ticket. Later, she would admit: “Nabudol ako.”
(Manila Bulletin)

The Drug War Pivot: A Dealbreaker

Rodrigo Duterte’s drug war was described as “relentless and chilling,” with thousands killed
(Inquirer, HRW). Sara expected that to continue.

But in March 2025, the Palace made it clear that Marcos would not bring back tokhang or support EJK-style operations.

“The President will not allow the bloody tokhang and EJK to continue.”
— Palace Press Officer Claire Castro
(GMA)

Sara didn’t just lose a policy fight. She lost the core of what she thought she was preserving.

Even Infrastructure Didn’t Go Her Way

At first, Marcos said the right things—he’d build on the gains of the Duterte admin. He praised Build, Build, Build.
(Manila Shimbun)

But by 2025, Sara was saying:

“May nagbago ba sa bayan natin?”
(“Has anything really changed in our country?”)
(GMA)

It was no longer unity and continuity. It was disillusionment.

She Didn’t Ask Questions—She Just Assumed He’d Continue the Duterte Brand

In October 2024, Sara admitted:

“I don't remember him mentioning any platform… I just heard ‘Sama-sama tayong babangon muli.’”
(PhilStar)

She didn’t listen. She just assumed.

And when Marcos charted his own course, particularly on the drug war and foreign policy, she took it personally—because her father’s legacy was not just being ignored, it was being erased.

The Duterte Downfall: A Strategic Miscalculation from Day One

Sara Duterte’s “I did not bet properly” isn’t a one-off slip. It’s a slow-motion collapse that began the day the Dutertes agreed to back Bongbong Marcos.

From the outside, their alliance looked solid. But it was never built to last. Political analysts had already called it a “marriage of convenience” that would unravel by design
(InciteGov).

The Marcos family used the alliance to regain power—and they planned every step of it. From social media whitewashing to coalition-building, this wasn’t improvisation. It was strategy
(Brookings, UC Press).

Sara Didn’t See It Coming

She wanted the Defense post. She got Education.

She wanted partnership. She got marginalization.

She wanted legacy. She got betrayal.

Even in 2024, when she admitted she didn’t remember Marcos laying out any real platform, she didn’t call it what it was: a failure to do her homework
(PhilStar).

And Then Her Father Was Taken to The Hague

That was the final break. When Rodrigo Duterte was arrested and transferred to The Hague on charges of crimes against humanity, Marcos stayed silent. No defense. No gesture of solidarity. Just cold political calculus.

Sara wasn’t just cut off.

She was left behind.

You don’t get to rewrite your role in history just because the plot turned against you. You were there. You stood beside him. You campaigned with him. You defended him.

You don’t get to walk away clean now just because the cameras are rolling somewhere else.

Conclusion – The Echoes of Projection

This was a difficult piece to write.

Not because the facts were unclear—they weren’t. They were easy to verify. Sara Duterte's speech in Melbourne was full of claims that were either misleading, unproven, or easily contradicted by public data. That part was simple.

What made this hard was knowing that by holding her accountable, it might seem like I’m defending the Marcos administration. And I’m not. I have no illusions about Bongbong Marcos. I’m just not willing to let one dynasty’s lies slide because I oppose the other.

That’s the trap Sara Duterte hopes we’ll fall into. That anyone who criticizes her must be on the other side. But sometimes, the truth doesn’t pick a side—it just points out the hypocrisy.

She stood on a stage and talked about injustice, betrayal, and weak leadership. She accused others of corruption, of lacking vision, of failing the people. And yet, everything she said ricocheted back to her.

She complained about a government with no plan. But where is hers?

She accused the ICC of bias. But she’s the one whitewashing her father’s human rights record.

She demanded transparency. But refused to explain how she liquidated ₱125 million in 11 days.

She said she was scammed. But she was never forced into the alliance. She wanted to preserve power, and when it slipped from her hands, she rewrote the story.

It’s projection. Every criticism she throws is a reflection of her own record. Every attack she makes falls apart under scrutiny. That’s not coincidence. That’s character.

And when you strip the stage away, when you turn down the microphones, what are we left with?

A Vice President who spends more time flying abroad than leading from her office. A public official who cherry-picks what foreign policy issues matter to her. A political figure who doesn’t show up when it’s uncomfortable, but always finds a camera when it’s convenient.

The rally was never about justice for her father. It wasn’t about national interest. It wasn’t about leadership.

It was branding. Repackaging. Repositioning.

That’s the hardest part to admit—because even now, in 2025, some people still want to believe she’s different. That she’s principled. That she’s not her father.

But the contradictions aren’t accidental. They’re part of the act.

She wants the sympathy of a daughter, the power of a politician, and the immunity of a victim—all while hiding behind slogans that no longer hold up.

Fact-checking shouldn’t feel this personal. But when lies are dressed as speeches, and projection is passed off as conviction, somebody has to say it plainly.

Sara Duterte’s Melbourne posturing didn’t survive scrutiny.

It collapsed under the weight of her own contradictions.