The Philippines has seen its democracy tested by scandals that expose not just corruption, but the uneasy intersection of politics, intelligence, and the military.
From Hello Garci in 2005 to ACT Teachers Rep. Antonio Tinio’s expose on flood control kickbacks in 2025, the common thread is chilling: presidents caught in compromising communications, allegedly bugged by their own state’s security apparatus.
With Vice President Sara Duterte’s former security officers implicated in questionable disbursements of intelligence funds, the pattern deepens.
From Hello Garci to Marcos Jr.
The “Hello Garci” recordings, traced to the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (ISAFP), revealed how military surveillance captured conversations between then-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and a Commission on Elections official.
What began as intelligence monitoring became evidence of electoral manipulation, thrusting the armed forces into the role of reluctant whistleblowers.
Two decades later, Makabayan Bloc endorsed impeachment complaint against President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., as revealed by Tinio, cited records of communications acknowledging the delivery of billions in alleged kickbacks tied to flood control project insertions.
The source of these records remains unclear, but their existence suggests that surveillance or intelligence insiders once again played a role in documenting presidential misconduct.
The Vice President’s Security Detail
Reports linking Vice President Sara Duterte’s former security officers to questionable intelligence fund releases are expected to draw sharp scrutiny when the impeachment complaint against her reaches the House Justice Committee.
In a November 2024 hearing, Office of the Vice President (OVP) disbursing officer Gina Acosta testified that Duterte authorized the release of ₱125 million in confidential funds to Col. Raymund Dante Lachica in 2022. Separately, Department of Education (DepEd) disbursing officer Edward Fajarda told lawmakers that ₱37.5 million was withdrawn in tranches and handed to Col. Dennis Nolasco in 2023.
The testimonies place two former members of the vice president’s security detail at the center of allegations involving the diversion of intelligence funds.
Observers note that the disclosures highlight how individuals tasked with protecting top officials can also become conduits for questionable transactions—blurring the line between security and participation in financial irregularities.
The revelations are expected to intensify debates in the Justice Committee, where lawmakers will weigh whether the allegations form sufficient grounds to advance the impeachment process.
Can the Military Speak the Truth?
The recurring role of the military and security apparatus raises urgent questions about accountability and civilian supremacy.
One of the most pressing is whether top military officials can testify truthfully in impeachment trials against impeachable officials.
In principle, the Constitution and rules of impeachment allow any witness with relevant knowledge to testify, including military officers.
In practice, however, the chain of command, loyalty to civilian leadership, and the culture of silence within the armed forces often prevent full disclosure.
The credibility of impeachment proceedings depends on whether military and security officials are willing and permitted to tell the truth, even when it implicates the highest leaders they are sworn to protect.
If Hello Garci was democracy stolen in eavesdrop, and the flood control kickbacks were democracy drowned in billions, then the involvement of Vice President Duterte’s former security officers in alleged anomalous intelligence fund disbursements is democracy hollowed out from within.
The guardians of the state, entrusted with protection, have become entangled in the very betrayals they were meant to shield against.
The lesson is clear: in the Philippines, the military and security establishment are not simply guardians of authority.
Time and again, they emerge as silent witnesses—and at times, reluctant truth-tellers—to abuses of power.
Whether senior officers can speak with candor in impeachment proceedings against impeachable officials will determine if accountability can finally break through the armor of impunity. (ZIA LUNA)
