ON Monday, Nov. 25, as per media reports, Vice President Sara Duterte declared that she was taken out of context when she, in a press conference via Zoom, announced she had already talked to (or ordered) someone to kill the president, the first lady and the House speaker in the event something were to happen to her.
She said there was a big “if” in her pronouncement last Saturday. That the assassination was only to take place if something happened to her. Sen. Ronaldo “Bato” Dela Rosa supported her saying that Duterte’s statement was actually a conditional threat, premised on the condition something happens to her.
Maybe she had realized, or maybe she was talked to by her advisers on the gravity of her statement.
I hate to say this, but only a fool or, as Secretary Larry Gadon puts it, “bobo,” would take her latest pronouncements seriously.
When she said she had already talked to someone to go on a killing spree the moment something happens to her, and which she had affirmed in her latest statement, which Dela Rosa corroborates, a “contract” between her and the would-be assassin has already been activated, meaning she had already violated the law in the highest possible terms when she put a contract on the heads of the president, the first lady and the speaker.
Her situation would not have reached this point if only she had answered the questions being raised in the quad committee probe, to wit:
a) How her staff handled her P612 million confidential funds, which, according to personnel from the LandBank, were withdrawn in cold cash and stuffed in gym bags, approximately P25 to P30 million per stash;
b) Who are Mary Grace Piattos and Cocoy Villamin, who signed the 4,500 acknowledgment receipts for the withdrawn cash; and
c) How was her special disbursing officer Edward Fajarda able to hop in 26 different places all over the country in a single day for purposes of giving out rewards, paying for information, or settling “safe house” rentals using the DepEd’s P112.5-million confidential funds, and seven other disbursements also in a single day in Malolos, Davao, San Francisco (Agusan del Sur), Makati, Negros Oriental, Negros Occidental and Davao City?
These are just some of the anomalies discovered by the members of the quad committee on the disbursement of her confidential fund.
* * *
Recently, the Philippines faced what has been termed a “parade” of typhoons, bringing heavy flooding to both the southern and northern parts of Luzon. This series of storms has reignited discussions around government accountability, as critics have pointed fingers at the administration for the worsening flood conditions. However, this narrative overlooks the significant roles played by local government officials and the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) in the management of flood control projects.
A glaring example can be found in the Caraga region, where a flood control project, fully funded and scheduled to commence early this year, has been stymied by political maneuvering. Despite the allocation of resources from the DPWH, the implementation of this critical project was derailed when the provincial governor and the regional director of the DPWH intervened. Instead of proceeding with the project as planned, they shifted the bidding process from the district office to the regional office of the DPWH, resulting in delays and complications.
This change in procedure raised eyebrows, particularly as it is alleged that the governor, along with a certain official from the House of Representatives (the said person is not a congressman), conspired with the regional director to ensure that a contractor favored by the governor would win the bid. As of now, this flood control project remains unimplemented, leaving the region vulnerable to the very floods it was designed to mitigate.
The situation in Caraga is not an isolated incident; it highlights a troubling trend that likely extends to other regions in the country. The intersection of politics and public works can often lead to decisions that prioritize personal or political gain over the urgent needs of communities. As the floods recede and the government faces scrutiny, it is crucial for citizens and stakeholders to demand transparency and accountability in the management of flood control initiatives.
In the wake of such natural disasters, the focus should not only be on immediate relief efforts but also on the structural issues that contribute to widespread flooding. It is imperative that local governments and agencies prioritize the implementation of infrastructure projects designed to protect communities rather than allowing political interests to derail them. Only through vigilant oversight and active citizen engagement can we hope to see meaningful change in the way flood control measures are managed in the Philippines
