The Philippines is currently ensnared in a web of intersecting national crises that stretch from alleged multi-billion peso corruption scandals within its legislative halls to a profound, existential debate over national sovereignty against the looming threat of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The simultaneous nature of these conflicts has exposed deep divisions within the country’s political elite, fueled public cynicism, and led commentators to decry what they view as a complete collapse of accountability and a humiliating submission to foreign judicial authority.

At the heart of the domestic turmoil lies a massive flood control scam that implicates high-ranking political figures. Concurrently, the government’s contradictory stance on the ICC’s jurisdiction over potential arrest warrants for figures like former President Rodrigo Duterte and Senator Bato dela Rosa is sparking widespread concern that the current administration is betraying its constitutional duty to protect its citizens and uphold Philippine law.

The Rot at the Core: The Flood Control Scandal and the Alleged Cover-up
The immediate focus of public outrage is the ongoing investigation into a massive flood control scandal, a case that embodies the perception of deep-seated corruption eating away at public funds. The scandal centers on allegations that billions of pesos intended for crucial flood mitigation projects—ironically vital in a country constantly battered by typhoons—were instead embezzled through ghost projects and kickbacks.

The public narrative intensified dramatically with the impending return of a key witness, Master Sergeant Orligotesa, to the Senate to offer further testimony. Orligotesa had previously delivered explosive testimony, alleging that he personally delivered large sums of money—millions in cash—to the mansion of former Speaker Martin Romualdez.

However, the investigation has been met with immediate and pervasive suspicion regarding its impartiality. Senator Ping Lacson, the Chairman of the powerful Blue Ribbon Committee tasked with probing the scam, has been openly accused by the public and commentators of covering up for Romualdez. This accusation stems from Lacson’s statement that there was no “strong evidence” against the former Speaker, an assertion that many found incredible given Orligotesa’s sworn, direct testimony about cash deliveries.

The speaker in the video voiced this widespread criticism, suggesting that Lacson and other officials are deliberately slowing down the investigation and actively attempting to discredit the witness. The implication is sinister: that justice for Romualdez and other figures will be “delayed until 2028,” effectively burying the scandal until the next presidential election, unless a strong, uncompromising leader emerges. Calls for Senator Marcoleta to replace Lacson as the committee chair highlight the deep frustration with what is widely seen as a political shield protecting powerful allies from accountability.

The Crisis of Sovereignty: The ICC’s Shadow
Running parallel to the corruption scandal is a far more fundamental legal and political crisis: the government’s relationship with the International Criminal Court (ICC). The central argument pushed by political commentators and the Duterte loyalists is simple: the Philippines is no longer a member of the ICC, having withdrawn from the Rome Statute, and therefore the court has no legal basis to intervene in its domestic affairs.

However, the current administration’s actions have directly undermined this claim of non-jurisdiction. The Department of Justice (DOJ), led by Secretary Boying Remulla, has been heavily criticized for “assisting” ICC representatives during their visits to the country. This perceived cooperation is viewed as a severe contradiction, a “submissive” attitude that signals a betrayal of national sovereignty.

The speaker expressed a sense of “hopelessness” not only regarding the unresolved corruption but also the government’s stance on the ICC, emphasizing that the country’s own laws and the principle of national sovereignty must be supreme. Critics accuse those who accept foreign jurisdiction—pejoratively labeled as “leftists, yellow, and loyalists”—of surrendering Philippine independence. The comparison is often drawn to strong, sovereign nations like Russia and Israel, which reportedly disregard ICC warrants and even issue their own against ICC officials, contrasting sharply with the Philippine government’s perceived capitulation.

Legal Bombshells and Questionable Precedents
The discussion over the ICC’s power was further complicated by specific legal details. The speaker suggested that Secretary Remulla is somehow “directing” actions against Duterte and dela Rosa. This perception of manipulation is rooted in the belief that the current administration is utilizing the ICC—an external entity—to achieve political objectives, namely the neutralization of political rivals ahead of the 2028 elections.

A crucial development that came to light was the clarification by Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin concerning the Supreme Court’s new rule on extradition proceedings. This rule mandates that there is “no automatic extradition” and requires a prior court resort before a person subject to an arrest warrant can be brought out of the country. This legal clarification is interpreted as a potential defense mechanism for Senator dela Rosa, offering a critical procedural loophole that might prevent his immediate transfer to The Hague, similar to what happened in the arrest of former President Duterte, which was criticized for being too swift and lacking in due process.

The speaker speculated that the government may have misinterpreted the law in past actions, forcing the Supreme Court to step in and clarify the proper, sovereign procedure. This suggests a pattern where domestic legal safeguards are only being asserted after perceived errors or political expediency have already set a questionable precedent. The core question remains: why is the Philippine government appearing to facilitate the workings of an international court when it should be vigorously defending its own jurisdiction?

The concern over the ICC’s scope was also voiced, questioning whether the court would lower its standards to prosecute ordinary officials or “hitmen,” effectively reducing itself to a “regional trial court” for the Philippines—a scenario seen as a further affront to the domestic justice system.

The Cost of Submission on the Global Stage
The article concludes with a sharp critique of the perceived consequences of the current administration’s “submissive” approach to the international community. The speaker lamented President Marcos Jr.’s perceived “lack of respect on the international stage,” citing a controversial incident at an ASEAN summit where he was allegedly “pulled away” from a sultan. This is interpreted as a consequence of his perceived actions against his own citizens and his failure to project genuine national strength.

In stark contrast, the speaker recalled the era of former President Duterte, whose assertive “war on drugs” was, according to the narrative, admired by ASEAN leaders and the world for its strength and decisiveness. The belief is that protecting Senator Bato dela Rosa is an act of strong disapproval of the current government’s perceived submission to foreign powers.

The underlying message is one of urgency: if the government continues to hide its cooperation with the ICC while denying its jurisdiction, it is engaging in a profound act of self-deception and wrongdoing. The refusal to openly assert national sovereignty, unlike powerful nations that face no such ICC pressure, highlights a perceived double standard and an abdication of national pride and legal independence. The time for the government to stop this contradictory behavior and defend the nation’s integrity is now.