The political atmosphere in the Philippines has reached a fever pitch following a series of dramatic disclosures that shine an unflinching light on alleged high-level corruption and a seismic rift within the ruling administration. What began as persistent rumors regarding the misuse of public funds has now culminated in an explosive testimony from individuals close to the center of power, painting a vivid picture of presidential frustration and the calculated use of legislative mechanisms to allegedly facilitate massive financial diversions.

The Private Eruption: A President’s Unstoppable Anger
At the core of the political storm is a shocking account from Congressman Toby Chanco, who has provided a window into an intensely charged meeting involving the President and then-Speaker Martin Romualdez. The setting was reportedly a private family Sunday lunch, which quickly escalated into a tense confrontation in the President’s office.

According to Chanco’s testimony, the President did not mince words, directly accusing the Speaker and his associate, Zaldico, of “taking all the money” intended for the executive branch’s flagship projects and seizing essential funds. The President’s exact words, as recounted, conveyed deep frustration: “I have been here for three years and I haven’t been able to get anything built because you in Congress are going too far.”

This unprecedented display of presidential anger confirms that the issues of alleged excessive spending and corruption within the legislature were not mere whispers but a source of personal outrage for the nation’s top executive. The President reportedly lamented the alleged corruption as “too much,” emphasizing that he was receiving no benefit from the purported illicit financial activities. This moment serves as a clear indicator of the deep internal divide over the handling of public finances.

The Eight-Month Interval: Action Taken Behind the Scenes
A crucial question posed by analysts is the eight-month gap between the November 24 private confrontation and the President’s eventual public admonition in his State of the Nation Address (SONA), where he famously urged officials to “have some shame.” Critics argue that during this long interval, no charges were filed and no formal investigations were launched, suggesting a lack of decisive action.

However, Congressman Chanco provides an alternative perspective, asserting that significant actions were indeed taken, albeit away from the public eye. Right after the tense November meeting, Speaker Romualdez reportedly promised to restore funding to flagship projects and correct the budget. When this promise was allegedly not fulfilled by January, a swift response followed: Zaldico was removed as the Appropriations Committee Chairman.

More importantly, Chanco revealed the executive branch took a crucial, non-public step: holding back the implementation of all questionable items inserted into the budget. This move effectively froze the release of over 80 billion pesos out of an estimated 200 billion pesos in questionable House insertions. Chanco argues that this action, which prevented the money from being spent, had the same financial effect as a line-item veto. While the items remained written in the budget, they could not be implemented, thus saving the public funds. This strategy, according to Chanco, was a pragmatic remedy to the budgetary crisis, as a full budget reenactment would have caused severe negative impacts on the national economy.

The Mechanism of Alleged Secrecy: Bicameral vs. NEP
The most compelling aspect of this scandal revolves around the alleged strategy for inserting the substantial funds. Zaldico is said to have claimed he was instructed by the President to insert 100 billion pesos worth of projects. This claim has been met with incredulous counter-arguments from critics and administration loyalists who question the logistics, particularly why such an insertion would occur during the Bicameral Conference (Bicam) and not during the more public National Expenditure Program (NEP) phase.

Chanco’s analysis systematically dismantles the critics’ arguments, suggesting the Bicam process was the safest place for such massive, covert insertions.

NEP Transparency: Inserting funds in the NEP is public from the start, scrutinized instantly by the media, analysts, COA (Commission on Audit), and civil society. Every government agency openly defends its budget, making any large, questionable allocation immediately exposed and debated.

Bicameral Opacity: In stark contrast, the Bicameral process is a closed-door affair. It operates with no public scrutiny, no media presence, and crucially, no detailed records or minutes are made public. Only the final reconciled budget numbers are revealed, without clearly identifying who inserted what. This environment, Chanco suggests, provides the necessary shield for discreet, large-scale financial maneuvers.

The sheer audacity and scale of the alleged 100 billion peso insertion, coupled with the confidence Zaldico displayed, leads to a profound theoretical conclusion: a maneuver of this magnitude could only be attempted with the full confidence of high-level backing—potentially from the highest offices of the executive and legislative branches. This belief in immunity, Chanco suggests, is what emboldened the alleged actions.

The Political Fallout and Succession Anxiety
The internal conflict was not confined to a single meeting. Congressman Chanco further revealed that the President’s anger was so intense it pursued the former Speaker even while he was on an overseas trip, with the President allegedly conveying his rage via text messages, including a direct suggestion for a “change of leadership.” This ongoing pressure eventually led to Romualdez expressing his dismay to Chanco, who was privy to the escalating power struggle.

The fear surrounding these disclosures, particularly among the President’s loyalists, is the potential for these allegations to fuel a large-scale political backlash. The prospect of these revelations causing a significant shift in political power is real, with many speculating about the succession process. This anxiety over who might take the helm should the situation escalate highlights the high-stakes political environment these corruption allegations have created. The people are now demanding clear, unambiguous answers from the two most powerful figures implicated in this monumental financial and political crisis.