EDITORIAL: Truth First

THE call to oust President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in the middle of a wide-ranging corruption probe places the nation at crossroads.

On one hand, the accusations surrounding the alleged P25 billion pocketed from congressional insertions are too serious to ignore or dismiss. On the other, the timing and nature of these ouster calls risk being weaponized—either to derail the very investigation meant to uncover the truth, or to push the country toward unnecessary destabilization.

Malacañang's warning is not without merit: a change in leadership mid-probe carries the real possibility that investigations could be stalled, diluted, or abandoned altogether.

Historically, corruption cases linked to political upheavals have a way of disappearing into the fog of power transitions. The Palace’s assertion that “those who want him removed are people and groups whose interests are threatened by this investigation” must be weighed—not accepted blindly, but not dismissed outright either.

Still, it must be said: public trust is not rebuilt through fear mongering. It is restored through transparency.

The allegations made by former House appropriations committee chair Zaldy Co—no political lightweight—go beyond whispers and innuendo. They involve large sums, traceable transactions, and a process that demands full public scrutiny.

The United People’s Initiative (UPI) and other groups are correct to insist that the administration release documents and records tied to budget allocations and fund movements. This is not sedition—it is public accountability at work.

But here lies the fine line: calling for a presidential resignation before the truth is fully laid bare risks turning a battle for accountability into a political brawl. It may hand victory—not to the Filipino people—but to those who thrive in chaos and cover.

Corruption must be rooted out, regardless of who is found guilty. If the allegations reach the President, he must face the consequences. But the nation should not be pushed into removing a leader based on accusations alone, just as it should not allow that leader to use the specter of destabilization as a shield against legitimate inquiry.

The solution is neither silence nor upheaval. It is full, unimpeded transparency—with no sacred cows, no protected allies, no political exceptions.

If President Marcos is indeed serious about “cleaning up the mess,” as Palace officials claim, then he must prove it not through warnings, but through action: open the records, declassify the documents, and let the investigation run its course—wherever it leads.

And if, in the end, it leads to him—then resignation will no longer be a demand. It will be a duty.