Fresh impeachment noise has surfaced against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., anchored on two explosive narratives: alleged links to a supposed “Duterte kidnapping” plot and continued criticism over the country’s flood control failures.

Supporters of former President Rodrigo Duterte have pushed back hard, branding the allegations as reckless, speculative, and politically timed, rather than evidence-based. They argue that no verified proof has been presented to substantiate claims of state involvement in any kidnapping scenario tied to Duterte—raising serious concerns about due process and responsible discourse.

On flood control, critics point to long-standing infrastructure issues that span multiple administrations, warning against selective blame that ignores decades of systemic problems, project delays, and legacy contracts. Legal observers note that policy failures or unresolved infrastructure challenges do not automatically equate to impeachable offenses, unless tied to clear constitutional violations, corruption, or criminal liability.

The growing calls for impeachment arrive amid heightened political polarization, prompting questions inside and outside the House of Representatives of the Philippines:
👉 Is impeachment being used as a constitutional safeguard, or as a political weapon?

For many Filipinos, the deeper concern is not the headlines—but whether accountability debates are being driven by facts, evidence, and law, or by narratives designed to inflame division. As history shows, impeachment without firm grounding risks weakening institutions rather than strengthening democracy.