When DDS Arguments Masquerade as Political Insight

A few days ago, I got a message from a long-time follower of Morning Coffee Thoughts—Mr. Alex Narciso.

He had come across a Facebook post and asked if I could take a look. No pressure. Just a quiet, thoughtful ask: “Would love to hear your thoughts on this.”

As soon as I read it, I dropped it into the FIFO queue—first in, first out, like I always do. But truth be told, I haven’t stopped thinking about it since.

It was one of those posts that doesn’t shout. It doesn’t rant. It just flows—calm, articulate, almost convincing. And that’s exactly what makes it worth talking about.

Because when an opinion—especially one that’s being shared to over 60,000 followers—starts sounding like clarity but is actually built on misdirection, it becomes something else. It stops being a take. It starts shaping how people understand the truth.

And if that post recycles the usual DDS lines—lahat naman magnanakaw, this is just politics, loyalty to the masa—but frames them as “insight,” then it deserves a closer look. Not to attack the author. Not to argue. But to slow things down, strip away the framing, and come back to what’s actually real.

So yes, this started as a topic request. But I decided to turn it into a full Morning Coffee Thoughts entry because some opinions carry weight. And when they reach far enough, they deserve a fair, thoughtful response.

Alex—thank you for sending this. And sorry it took a few days to get here.

Let’s talk about it now.

The Post in Focus: What Was Actually Said

Here’s the original post that sparked this request. I’m quoting it in full so nothing gets lost in paraphrasing:

“WHY THE PINKS ARE BETTING BIG ON IMPEACHING SARA—AND WHAT THEY’RE REALLY AFTER”

Let’s not kid ourselves. The renewed push for Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment—fueled by the Pink bloc and their media, NGO, and legal networks—might wear the mask of accountability. But behind the curtain, this looks a lot less like justice… and a lot more like political baiting.

At first glance, you’d think it’s about democratic ideals. But if you’ve followed the power games of Imperial Manila long enough, you’ll smell what this really is: a trap disguised as a cause. And here’s the kicker—this trap isn’t aimed just at Sara. It’s designed to let her destroy her enemies first, before they strike her down too.

THEIR REAL PLAY: LET SARA WRECK LBM—THEN TAKE HER OUT

You see, Sara Duterte isn’t just defending herself. If the impeachment trial moves forward, she’ll likely unleash a full-blown exposé against the LBM trio—Liza, Bongbong, and Martin (term “LBM” credit to Sass Rogando Sasot). Think budget insertions, the ICC betrayal of Tatay Digong, and all the quiet corruption the LBM bloc doesn’t want aired publicly.

The Pinks are watching this unfold with popcorn. Because for them, it’s a win either way:

- If Sara wins the impeachment, she walks out stronger—but not without leaving the LBM camp in political shambles, humiliated before 2028.

- If Sara loses, they eliminate the biggest rival early and leave Marcos-Romualdez bleeding from the wounds she inflicted.

Strategic? Absolutely. Honest? That’s another story.

WHY THE PINK NETWORKS ARE BACK IN THE GAME

Watch the timing. Watch who’s suddenly vocal. The legal orgs. The elite schools. The NGOs with long histories of anti-Duterte rhetoric. They’re circling the Senate like it’s 2017 again. But this time, they’re not after due process—they’re after a fractured landscape where they can walk in as “the last moral alternative.”

Let’s be blunt: they don’t want Sara acquitted, and they don’t want the LBM dominant either. Pinks want both camps to crash into each other—so they walk into 2028 as the saviors of “democracy.” But…

THEY FORGOT ONE THING: THE DILIGENT LOYALTY OF THE MASA

Here’s what these Pinks and politicos always underestimate: the people who ride habal-habal to vote. The people who cried for Duterte when he was flown to The Hague. The people in Visayas and Mindanao who know what betrayal smells like.

This impeachment—if pushed too far—won’t stay in the Senate. It will spill out into the streets. Into communities. Into people’s hearts. Because to millions of Filipinos, this isn’t just a trial—it’s a war against the only leaders they’ve ever felt truly fought for them.

They’re not analyzing footnotes or debating in cafés. They’re watching. Quietly. Waiting.

And if Sara falls—not through fair trial but through staged demolition—the blowback won’t just hit the Pinks or LBM. It will hit the entire system.

ACCOUNTABILITY OR CALCULATED CHAOS?

If this is truly about justice, then demand justice for all. Where’s the outrage on the PhilHealth fund diversions? On pork insertions? On Tatay’s ICC surrender?

You want to clean house? Start with all corners—not just your political rivals.

Because if this trial is used to hijack 2028… and you provoke a storm you can’t control… don’t say the masa didn’t warn you.

OPINION | AUTHOR OMITTED

I won’t mention the name of the person who wrote the post. Not because I’m trying to soften any critique, but because this isn’t personal. It never was.

Until Alex sent it to me, I didn’t even know this person existed. I had never followed his page, never seen his content in my feed, and had no prior knowledge of his work. What caught my attention wasn’t who wrote it—it was what was being said, and how easily it could be mistaken for something grounded in truth.

The post is framed as opinion. And while everyone’s entitled to one, opinions—especially from pages with over 60,000 followers—carry weight. They influence the way people process current events, and in this case, they echo lines that have been repeated by pro-Duterte voices for years.

Now, I’m not here to take apart the author. I don’t believe in building a weaker version of someone’s argument just to tear it down. That’s called a straw man. And we’ve seen too much of that online.

I’d rather keep the argument whole, and place it beside something more solid: facts, patterns, context, and a bit of moral clarity. That’s all.

Because if this kind of framing is gaining traction—not by yelling, but by sounding reasonable—then it’s worth taking seriously. And calmly pulling it apart, piece by piece.

The Familiar Arguments, Dressed in New Language

Under the clean structure and polished tone, the same old arguments are still there—just better packaged. Here’s what they sound like when you strip the framing away:

• Don’t impeach Sara—because others are corrupt too.

• The process is tainted—because Congress only acted due to internal bribes or political payoff.

• It’s all about 2028—Marcos wants her out of the way.

• It’s a trap by the Pinks—to let Sara expose Marcos allies, then take her down too.

• Now isn’t the time—there’s a war in the Middle East, and this is a distraction.

• The masa will not allow it—and there will be unrest if she falls.

• What about PhilHealth?—and pork barrel, and the ICC, and everything else?
  
  

None of this is new. These ideas have been echoed in online spaces aligned with the Duterte camp. The only thing that’s changed is the tone—less fire, more finesse.

And it’s not just anonymous posts on Facebook. These same ideas have been publicly repeated by several high-profile pro-Duterte officials and commentators:

• Senator Imee Marcos has repeatedly deflected from the impeachment by invoking broader national concerns, saying things like, “Sa dinami dami ng problema natin… impeachment ba ang solusyon?” (GMA News, Manila Bulletin).
  
  

• Sara Duterte herself has claimed that lawmakers were bribed to support the complaint, and that the process is a strategic effort to remove her ahead of 2028 (Inquirer, GMA News).
  
  

• Daniel Long, a former speechwriter for Imee Marcos, posted that impeachment is just political baiting disguised as accountability—a direct echo of the post we’re examining (SunStar).
  
  

• Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa shared an AI-generated video claiming children were against the impeachment, calling critics “yellow” and “communists” (PhilStar).
  
  

• Senator Robin Padilla filed a resolution to terminate the proceedings altogether, while saying, “Kahit sunugin mo ako dito, mangangamoy Rodrigo Roa Duterte ako.” (PhilStar).
  
  

• Senate Majority Leader Francis Tolentino insisted on dismissing the case entirely by citing constitutional cutoffs (Senate.gov.ph).
  
  

When officials and influencers keep repeating the same messaging—across Senate hearings, interviews, press releases, and social media posts—it’s no longer just one person’s opinion. It becomes a pattern of defense. One that’s meant to sound consistent, calculated, and eventually, unquestioned.

So let’s do the opposite.

Let’s not panic.

Let’s not rush to debate.

Let’s not rush to ad hominem.

Let’s simply sit with the arguments, place them beside what we know, and ask: does this still make sense once you remove the framing?

What Still Holds Up When Facts Meet Fiction

We've heard these talking points in Senate hearings, social media posts, even from relatives over coffee. But once you strip away the emotion and partisanship, you're left with a simple test: Do the arguments stand up to the law, the evidence, and the duty to the public?

Let’s take each of these arguments and see what holds up under pressure.

1. "Others are corrupt too."

The Constitutional Reality:
Article XI, Section 1 of the Constitution is clear: “Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people.” That line has no exceptions. It doesn’t say “unless others are doing it too.”

The Legal Standard:
Republic Act 6713 requires every public official to "uphold public interest over personal interest" and to act with "utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, and loyalty" (RA 6713).

The Hard Fact:
The Commission on Audit found that 405 out of 677 names on Sara Duterte's confidential fund liquidation forms have no birth records with the Philippine Statistics Authority (PhilStar). These aren’t theories. They’re findings from government agencies.

The Real-World Meaning of “Public Trust”:
It’s not just a slogan. Public trust is about defending public money, being honest about spending, and taking accountability—especially when no one is looking.

Bottom Line:
“Others do it too” isn’t a legal defense. It’s an admission of guilt wrapped in a plea for blind loyalty.

2. "This is all politics."

The Constitutional Framework:
Yes, impeachment is political—because it's in the hands of elected officials. But political doesn’t mean illegitimate. It means accountable to the public. This isn’t a backdoor trial—it’s the front door of democracy.

The Documentation:
On November 23, 2024, Sara Duterte said live on Facebook: “I have talked to a person. I said, if I get killed, go kill BBM, Liza Araneta, and Martin Romualdez. No joke.” (Al Jazeera)

The Legal Weight:
Assassination threats against the President qualify as “other high crimes” under Article XI, Section 2 (NCDA). The National Security Adviser called it a "matter of national security" (CNN).

Expert Voice:
UP Law’s impeachment primer states clearly: “Political does not mean unprincipled. It means the people decide through their representatives” (UP Law).

Bottom Line:
This isn't drama. This is a constitutional mechanism to deal with real threats to public order—and no one is above it.

3. "They just want to remove her before 2028."

The Timeline vs. the Excuse:
This isn’t about next election year. This is about December 2022—when Sara Duterte spent ₱125 million in 11 days without any legal authority to do so (GMA).

The Legal Breach:
The 2022 budget did not authorize confidential funds for her office (GMA). That alone makes the release of funds unconstitutional under Article VI, Section 29(1) (Parliament PDF).

The Evidence:
Among the payees? “Mary Grace Piattos.” “Jay Kamote.” “Miggy Mango.” “Xiaome Ocho.” (PhilStar).

Bottom Line:
If your biggest defense is “they’re afraid of me,” then you're not actually answering the question: Did you spend public funds illegally or not?

4. "It’s a trap by the Pinks."

The Political Reality:
215 of 306 House members voted to impeach Sara Duterte (Senate PDF). That’s not an opposition maneuver—it’s a majority of the Marcos-led House.

The Evidence Trail:
Sara Duterte and her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte, held ₱2.2 billion in joint BPI accounts that were never declared in their SALNs (Vera Files). In June 2025, a journalist deposited ₱100 into one of those accounts and got confirmation—it’s still active (Kwebani Barok).

The Legal Mandate:
Section 17, Article XI of the Constitution requires all public officials to file SALNs and declare all assets, liabilities, and net worth (Constitution).

Sharpened Line:
When you’re handed receipts, bank logs, and audit findings—and your only reply is “It’s all a setup”? That’s not a defense. That’s evasion.

Bottom Line:
Conspiracies can’t cancel out cash trails. This isn’t Pink propaganda—it’s government-documented misconduct.

5. "Now is not the time."

The Legal Obligation:
Article XI of the Constitution states that once the House impeaches, “trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed” (UP Law). Forthwith means now, not when it’s politically convenient.

The Practical Point:
Governments deal with multiple problems all the time. We’re not asking the entire state to stop—just the Senate to do its duty.

The Ethics of Priorities:
Public funds are supposed to serve the public. When fake names receive millions, that’s not harmless. That’s stolen school lunches, stolen health services, stolen dignity.

Reflection:
Accountability delayed is accountability denied. And for every day that trial is postponed, impunity gains ground.

Bottom Line:
There’s no such thing as a “better time” to stop corruption. The moment the evidence landed on the table, the clock started ticking.

6. "The masa won’t allow it."

Survey Reality:
A Social Weather Stations survey in May 2025 found that 88% of Filipinos believe VP Duterte must face the impeachment trial. An OCTA poll shows 78% want the Senate to proceed so she can “clear her name.”

Democratic Reminder:
Sovereignty resides in the people—not just in politicians who claim to speak for them. And that sovereignty is exercised through lawful processes, not threats of protest or loyalty tests.

Emotional Pause:
Let’s not kid ourselves. The masa want jobs, education, food on the table—and yes, they want clean governance. Real loyalty means defending their money, not the people who may have stolen it.

Bottom Line:
If your support comes with the condition of silence, it was never loyalty to begin with. It was power protecting itself.

7. "What about other scandals?"

The Truth:
PhilHealth is being investigated. The pork barrel scam is still being prosecuted. And former President Duterte was arrested by the ICC on March 12, 2025 (Research Reference).

The Legal Logic:
Justice isn’t rationed. One scandal doesn’t erase another. If anything, more corruption means we should be doing more about it—not shrugging it off.

Closing Jab:
Imagine a world where every criminal walks free because someone else committed a crime too. That’s not governance. That’s collapse.

Bottom Line:
“We must hold them all accountable” is the correct answer. “Let’s hold no one accountable” is the escape plan of the guilty.

What’s Left Standing?

Seven talking points—stripped down, dissected, and examined against our laws, our records, and our values.

And when you clear away the noise?

What’s left is this:
A government report saying fake people received real money.
A bank record never disclosed.
A death threat caught on video.

What we do with that says more about us than about her.

When Reflection Becomes a Response

When I first opened the message from Alex Narciso, I honestly thought it would be something I could skim and move on from. It wasn’t. His note didn’t just bring a post to my attention—it brought a wave of questions I couldn’t ignore. It forced me to sit with something that’s been quietly frustrating me for a while now: this slow, deliberate effort to blur the lines between accountability and persecution.

I didn’t write this right away. But I’ve been thinking about it ever since I read the post. It stayed with me—not because it was new, but because it wasn’t. It was a familiar tune with a new arrangement, echoing the same excuses we’ve been hearing for years: everyone’s corrupt, it’s all politics, it’s a trap, it’s bad timing, the people won’t allow it.

These talking points are not just wrong—they’re dangerous. And the longer they’re allowed to fester unchallenged, the harder it becomes to do the work of real reform. So even though this began as a topic request, I decided to turn it into a full blog because sometimes silence feels like complicity.

This isn’t about convincing loyalists or silencing critics. This is about putting facts where the noise is. It’s about anchoring the conversation to something real, something honest. Because while people are free to believe what they want, beliefs that spread to tens of thousands carry a responsibility—and they deserve to be tested.

I’m grateful to Alex for sending that message. It wasn’t just a prompt. It was a reminder: that even in the small act of responding to an opinion, we protect something larger. We protect the truth from distortion. We remind each other that accountability still matters. And we refuse to let the facts drown in fiction just because someone said it well.

Conclusion: What This Conversation Is Really About

I don’t know if Sara Duterte will be convicted. That’s not for me to decide.

But I do know this: If the Commission on Audit says the names don't exist, and the Philippine Statistics Authority says those people were never born, married, or died in this country, then somebody lied. And if ₱125 million was liquidated in just 11 days, using fake receipts and fabricated identities, then the public deserves more than spin, loyalty tests, and distractions.

This isn’t about “sides.” It’s not about 2028. And it’s definitely not about who cries harder on camera or shouts louder in defense of “the masa.”

It’s about what kind of country we become if we stop caring about what’s true, just because it’s inconvenient. If we let go of accountability because we’re too tired, too loyal, or too afraid to demand it.

I didn’t write this to convince the unconvincible. I wrote it because someone asked me to look. And once I did, I couldn’t pretend I didn’t see it.

Let the trial push through. Let the evidence speak. Let the facts hurt, if they must — because the only thing worse than a painful truth is a comfortable lie paid for by public funds.