18/02/2026
Well said JAN Writer ...
SHE WHO WOULD NOT BEND: THE MYTH AND MAKING OF SARA DUTERTE
Before the charges were filed, before the receipts were questioned, before the assassination statement was clipped and looped on every Liberal-adjacent media platform in the country, there was a woman they could not figure out.
That was the original sin. That was what started all of this.
The Philippine establishment, that interlocking network of old money, Washington-facing technocrats, and the Left that somehow always ends up doing the oligarchy's dirty work, looked at Sara Duterte and saw something they had no category for. Not a socialite. Not a puppet. Not a reformist they could co-opt with a cabinet seat or stolen public funds.
They saw continuity. They saw the Davao project, the sovereign project, breathing and walking into their territory.
And they decided it had to stop.
So let us go through what they threw. Let us account for every stone.
Twenty-four articles of impeachment in the first complaint alone, a list so sprawling it raised more questions about the complainants' intentions than about Sara Duterte herself. The charges ranged from questions about confidential fund utilization at the OVP and DepEd, procurement concerns her office consistently disputed, and wealth comparisons across a decade of public service, to broader accusations about her years governing Davao that had never resulted in a single successful prosecution in any court.
Rounding out the complaint were contested COA findings, politically charged characterizations of her public statements, and the much-circulated assassination statement that, stripped of its context and the immense political pressure she was under, became the headline her opponents needed.
Twenty-four.
They held nothing back. They loaded every grievance, every whisper, every decade-old bank record that Antonio Trillanes had been sitting on, into a single artillery barrage and fired.
And here is what is remarkable: under that bombardment, she did not disappear.
On August 7, 2024, she stood before the cameras and publicly criticized the Marcos government on disaster management, policing, healthcare reform, and the ICC investigations into her father. She did not whisper it. She did not launder it through surrogates.
A vice president, already surrounded on all sides, chose confrontation over self-preservation. That is character. That is the Davao in her, the same steel that made her father finish his terms in that city despite every death threat and institutional opposition hurled at him, now sitting in the second-highest office in the land and refusing to perform docility for people who have already decided she must go.
The confidential funds issue deserves to be handled precisely, because precision is what her accusers never offered. Duterte requested P500 million for the OVP and P150 million for DepEd in confidential and intelligence funds. DepEd defended the use, citing intelligence-gathering functions. She eventually withdrew both requests, calling the controversy "divisive."
She retreated on that ground. Then they went after what she had already spent. COA flagged the initial liquidation reports for lack of acknowledgment receipts. When receipts were eventually submitted, lawmakers questioned the authenticity of names, many of which the Philippine Statistics Authority later said had no records in the national civil registry.
This looks damning, until you apply the same standard universally, which her accusers never do.
Intelligence and confidential operations, by design, protect sources. Names are protected. That is the entire institutional logic of CIFs. The recipients are not supposed to appear in a government registry. The fact that the receipts became a weapon is itself a demonstration of how the legal architecture of these funds was never meant to survive a hostile political investigation. The same funds exist across every executive office. The same ambiguities exist for every sitting official who has used them.
What doesn't exist is the coordinated congressional fury, the Supreme Court filings, the Akbayan press conferences. That selective prosecution is the tell.
By December 2025, COA's 2024 audit report on the OVP found no findings of loss. You will not see that headline run as prominently.
The assassination statement. Even the most committed defender has to sit with this one. Duterte said, on camera, that she had hired someone to kill President Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta, and Speaker Martin Romualdez if she were killed first. The NBI recommended filing inciting to sedition and grave threats charges. Marcos called it "troubling."
She described it as a "plan without flesh" and asked, pointedly: "Is revenge from the grave a crime?"
She had a point.
The statement was conditional, postmortem in its premise, and made in the context of a woman who had every reason to believe her life and political existence were under coordinated assault. She had watched the ICC process weaponized against her father. She had watched allies abandon her one by one. She had watched institution after institution align against her family.
The statement was not a coup plot. It was a cornered person speaking in the language of her political tradition, loudly and without apology, and being prosecuted for the tone rather than any actual action.
On February 5, 2025, 215 House members voted to impeach her. The charges included corruption, plotting to assassinate the president, involvement in extrajudicial killings, and incitement to insurrection. It was a supermajority assembled through the same patronage machinery that has governed Philippine congressional politics since before she was born, wielded now by people who had campaigned with her and her father two years earlier, who had eaten at their tables and asked for their endorsements.
The betrayal was institutional and personal simultaneously.
And then the Supreme Court, in a 13-0-2 decision, said no. The process was unconstitutional. The one-year bar had been violated. Her due process rights had been trampled. Thirteen justices, not one or two, unanimous. The court looked at what the House had done and called it what it was.
They refiled.
That refiling is the entire story. When the highest court in the land rules unanimously that you violated the Constitution in your rush to remove someone, and your response is to begin again immediately, you are not pursuing accountability. You are pursuing elimination. The distinction matters enormously because it reframes every other charge.
If the process itself is corrupt, the charges it carries are contaminated. Not necessarily false, but impossible to evaluate fairly when the apparatus evaluating them has already demonstrated it will break its own rules to reach its preferred conclusion.
Sara Duterte herself said, in November 2024: "If I get impeached, then that's my end." She said it without self-pity, with the fatalistic clarity of someone who has been in political combat long enough to know what machines can do when they decide a person must be removed.
And yet she kept going. She organized. She traveled to Japan and met OFWs. She declared she was seriously considering running in 2028, even as the Palace called it premature.
She kept going because she understands something her opponents do not: that the Filipino people are not passive recipients of whatever the establishment decides. They vote. They remember. They elected her father. They elected her. They are watching everything being done in the name of accountability that looks, from the ground, more like vengeance.
The myth being built around Sara Duterte is the natural crystallization of what people see when they watch a solitary political figure absorb twenty-four articles of impeachment, a Supreme Court battle, NBI criminal referrals, disbarment proceedings, police complaints, and the full weight of a sitting president's machinery, and remain standing, remain defiant, remain the frontrunner for 2028 in every survey that does not come from power's corridor.
Her father began something that this country's entrenched interests never expected to survive his six years in Malacaรฑang. A systemic reckoning with how power is distributed, who it serves, and whether the Philippines can finally extract itself from the neocolonial arrangements that have kept it dependent, deferential, and structurally disadvantaged since independence. He moved against the drug networks that hollowed out communities.
He pivoted toward China and toward an independent foreign policy that treated the Philippines as a sovereign actor rather than a forward base for someone else's strategic interests. He spoke in a language that Filipinos in Mindanao, in the provinces, in the working poor understood as honest even when it was rough.
That project is unfinished. The institutions that were meant to be reformed are largely unreformed. The oligarchs are still oligarchs. The foreign policy independence is contested. The systemic rot that produced the drug epidemic, the poverty, the helplessness, is still structural and still waiting.
May Sara Duterte find her way through this fire not merely to survive, but to carry forward what her father dared to begin: not a dynasty... a reckoning, a genuine, systemic overhaul of a country that has been run for too long by too few for too little.
The Philippines does not need another manager of the status quo. It needs someone willing to finish the revolution.
______
๐ Stay connected! Be a free or paid subscriber on my Substack here:
substack.com/
If my work resonates and youโd like to support, you can do so here:
โ Buy Me A Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/janwriter
๐ฑ GCash (QR code): tiny.cc/JanWriter
Your support powers independent writing. Thank you! ๐น
