by Zia Luna
The numbers are striking, not because they prove wrongdoing, but because they expose a political irony that has become impossible to ignore.
For the past three years, former House Speaker Martin Romualdez and Vice President Sara Duterte have occupied opposite ends of the country’s fiercest political divide. Their allies traded accusations, their camps fought for public opinion, and their supporters treated the conflict as a battle between good and evil. Yet when the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) disclosures are placed side by side, a different picture emerges: two powerful political figures, both facing questions over billions of pesos in bank transactions linked to periods when they wielded immense influence.
The AMLC told the Sandiganbayan that transactions linked to Romualdez reached roughly ₱4.5 billion during his tenure as Speaker from 2022 to 2025. Separately, AMLC records presented before the Senate impeachment court showed ₱4.4 billion in covered and suspicious transactions involving Sara Duterte and her husband from 2007 to 2025. The figures are remarkably similar in scale, even if the contexts differ.
Again, a crucial distinction must be made: large transactions are not automatically evidence of illegal conduct. AMLC reports are red flags for scrutiny, not verdicts of guilt. Due process applies equally to both Romualdez and Duterte.
But the political lesson is harder to dismiss. Philippine politics has long thrived on personalities, clans, and manufactured rivalries. The Romualdez-Duterte feud encouraged voters to choose sides as if one camp represented virtue and the other corruption. The AMLC revelations challenge that simplistic narrative. They suggest that immense financial activity follows immense political power regardless of which family name is on the office door.
What makes the parallel noteworthy is timing. In Romualdez’s case, investigators noted that transaction activity peaked during his speakership and declined sharply after he left the post. For Duterte, the records cover years in which she and her family occupied some of the country’s most influential positions. In both cases, public office and financial activity appear intertwined enough to warrant public interest and scrutiny.
The real issue, therefore, is not whether Romualdez and Duterte are political enemies. It is whether the same standards are being applied to both. Accountability loses credibility when it is used as a weapon against rivals but rejected when it reaches one’s own allies.
Ultimately, these disclosures point to a deeper failure than dynastic rivalry: a political culture that consistently merges concentrated power and immense wealth with weak public accountability, whoever holds office. #
