Political and Economic Crises in the Philippines Intensify As Global Conflicts Worsen

Center for People Empowerment in Governance (CenPEG)

June 2025

Political Brief

June 2025 saw the Philippines grappling with intensified political and economic crises. The impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte dominated the political landscape, stemming from accusations of misuse of public funds. A controversial Senate decision to remand the impeachment articles back to the House, citing "constitutional infirmities," was widely criticized by legal scholars as an evasion of duty, highlighting a deeper political power struggle. Simultaneously, former President Rodrigo Duterte's ongoing International Criminal Court (ICC) case for crimes against humanity continued. His legal team's motion for provisional release was strongly opposed by the prosecution, citing his significant influence and potential flight risk. These intertwined domestic and international legal battles are seen as a concerted challenge to the Duterte political clan, potentially shaping future electoral strategies.

Economically, the Marcos Jr. administration's third year brought little relief, with a minimal minimum wage hike failing to address the widening gap between wages and living costs. Systemic corruption and political patronage continue to hinder development, worsening poverty and inequality, as evidenced by the Philippines falling behind on most Sustainable Development Goals. Meanwhile, the nation's wealthiest continue to prosper, exacerbating economic disparities. In foreign affairs, the Philippines increased its military presence in the South China Sea through joint exercises with the US and a new “one-theatre” approach with allies, amid escalating tensions and confrontations with China. These domestic challenges, set against a backdrop of increasing global instability from conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine, underscore the urgent need for an independent foreign policy and bolstered internal resilience.

I. PHILIPPINE POLITICS

The Continuing Political Drama: Sara Duterte’s Impeachment Saga

The impeachment of Vice President Duterte is primarily centered on accusations of misuse of public funds, particularly confidential and intelligence funds for both her office and the Department of Education when she also served as Education Secretary. Other grounds include allegations of unexplained wealth, betrayal of public trust, and even an alleged plot to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. The House of Representatives formally impeached her in February 2025, sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial, though the process has seen delays and procedural debates.

 At the heart of the crisis was the Senate's controversial decision to remand the Articles of Impeachment back to the House of Representatives—despite its constitutional duty to “forthwith proceed” with the trial once an impeachment complaint is endorsed by one third of the House. Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero presided over the Senate sitting as an impeachment court, but instead of initiating the trial, the chamber voted 18 5 to return the articles, citing “constitutional infirmities,” including the alleged violation of the one-year bar rule on impeachment.

The move was decried by legal scholars, constitutionalists, think tanks like CenPEG, and even former constitutional framers. They characterized the remand as an unconstitutional evasion of duty and a dangerous precedent that could shield powerful actors from accountability. UP College of Law faculty, as well as faculties of UP College of Media and Communication and UP Department of Political Science, among others, as well as legal experts like like former Comelec chairman Christian Monsod, Rene Sarmiento and Neri Colmenares joined the chorus of those calling the Senate's actions “illegal” and reflective of a deeper drift toward impunity.

Vice President Duterte’s legal team, composed of 16 lawyers from the Fortun Narvasa & Salazar law firm, filed their formal appearance but reserved the right to challenge the court’s jurisdiction. Duterte herself petitioned the Supreme Court to halt the proceedings, claiming that the fourth impeachment complaint violated the constitutional one-year bar rule. However, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) headed by Darlene Marie Berberabe maintained that the fourth complaint was valid and independent of earlier, unendorsed complaints.

Amid these developments, questions of bias emerged. Allies of Duterte, including Senators Bato dela Rosa, Bong Go, and Imee Marcos, were accused of undermining the proceedings through public statements and draft resolutions to kill the trial before it began. Bayan and other civic groups called for their inhibition. However, University of the Philippines (UP) Law Prof. Paolo Tamase clarified that while impeachment trials are political in nature, individual senators still bear the moral responsibility to recuse themselves if partiality is evident.

Despite the procedural stalemate, the House, led by presidential cousin Speaker Martin Romualdez, passed a resolution reaffirming the constitutional basis of the impeachment. However, it delayed re-accepting the returned Articles of Impeachment until the 20th Congress convenes in July. Tensions between the two chambers deepened as Senate President Escudero criticized the House for being “stubborn” and “hardheaded,” citing their refusal to accept pleadings and summons related to Duterte’s case.

Escudero and the Senate’s stance shows how the 2025 midterm elections influenced how the senators viewed the incumbent presidency: as vulnerable and tentative, its alliances in danger of fracturing (the Presidential sister herself, Sen. Imee Marcos, has openly, even if opportunistically so, defied her family and especially her brother the President to support the Dutertes during the elections.). Escudero may be weighing in on how much public support the impeachment – and/or the Marcos Jr. administration itself – has. So far, he may be sensing (or assuming) a lack of critical support for the impeachment.

ICC Proceedings and Duterte Sr.’s Motion for Temporary Release

In a parallel legal arena with wide political repercussions, June 2025 also saw significant developments in the international criminal case against former President Rodrigo Duterte at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. Duterte, who was arrested and extradited in March 2025 to face charges of crimes against humanity for the thousands of extrajudicial killings during his "war on drugs," remains in ICC custody.

In June, his legal team filed a motion for provisional release, citing his age, health concerns, and purported low flight risk. However, the ICC Prosecutor’s Office strongly opposed the motion, citing the gravity of the charges, the risk of interference in ongoing investigations and witness protection programs, and Duterte’s continuing influence within key Philippine institutions.

Indeed, political commentators like Ruben Carranza and Tony La Viña warn that Duterte’s enduring clout (reflected in the strength of his allies in Congress, the judiciary, and the security sector) makes him a significant flight risk. His network of loyalists could facilitate his evasion of international justice or shield him from re-arrest should he be released under lenient conditions. The former president’s persistent popularity in certain regions in the Philippines, coupled with a lack of clear state cooperation with the ICC, only amplifies these concerns.

Further complicating matters is the Duterte camp’s active use of disinformation to shape public opinion. In June, pro-Duterte social media pages and influencers circulated false claims that the ICC Prosecution was amenable to Duterte’s temporary release to Australia. It was a claim later denied outright by the Office of the Prosecutor. These narratives, although demonstrably false, gained traction in online platforms and reinforced the perception among Duterte supporters that the case is politically motivated.

Critics argue that this disinformation campaign mirrors tactics used during Duterte’s presidency: muddying public discourse, delegitimizing international institutions, and rallying nationalist sentiment to deflect from accountability. As such, observers see the ICC proceedings not just as a legal process but also as a test of international justice mechanisms in the face of coordinated political pushback from authoritarian actors.

These international proceedings cast a long shadow over the domestic impeachment of Sara Duterte, reinforcing public perception that the Duterte political dynasty is under siege both at home and abroad. At the same time, the ICC developments may also shape how various political blocs strategize for the 2028 elections, with some factions seeking to distance themselves from the Dutertes while others double down on their support.

Continued Attack on Progressive Opposition

Meanwhile, the sharp decline in the number of seats secured by progressive party-list organizations in the 19th Congress signals a deepening crisis in representative democracy, especially for sectors historically marginalized in governance. These grassroots organizations and mass movements have long served as a counterweight to elite-driven legislation.

But, they have been systematically targeted by the military establishment through intensified red-tagging campaigns, vilification, and disinformation operations. These efforts, often couched in counterinsurgency rhetoric, have gone beyond online attacks to include real-world harassment and threats against regional, provincial, and municipal coordinators. This climate of fear and repression has undermined their ability to campaign freely and engage constituents, eroding democratic participation from below.

Equally alarming is the continuing “bastardization” of the party-list system, originally designed to provide political space for marginalized sectors. Traditional political clans and interest groups have increasingly co-opted the system, fielding nominees with no genuine links to the sectors they claim to represent. This has not only crowded out legitimate sectoral voices but also skewed the party-list mechanism into an extension of dynastic power. The result is a legislature that mirrors the socioeconomic hierarchies it was meant to challenge, as corporate-backed and elite-controlled party-list groups dominate the landscape, often outspending and outmaneuvering grassroots organizations in a deeply uneven political field.

Compounding these structural challenges are allegations of election irregularities flagged by watchdog groups like Kontra Daya (counter-fraud). These include reports of disinformation, vote suppression, and procedural anomalies that disproportionately affected progressive party-list groups.

In this context, the reduction of their representation is not merely a reflection of electoral defeat but a symptom of a further constricting of democratic spaces – at least in form -- and the weakening of institutional safeguards meant to uphold electoral integrity. The shrinking space for progressive legislation threatens not only the agenda of social justice, labor and land rights, and equitable development, but also the very idea of inclusive governance.

Without urgent reforms and protections, the party-list system risks becoming another casualty in the erosion of democratic checks and balances in the Philippines.

Senate and House Leadership Alignments

As impeachment tensions simmered, political realignments unfolded in preparation for the 19th Congress. Both Escudero and Romualdez retained their respective leadership positions. Senator Alan Peter Cayetano confirmed Escudero had the numbers to win the Senate presidency if elections were held in June, though other contenders like Imee Marcos and Tito Sotto remained possibilities.

In the House, Romualdez secured the support of at least 287 lawmakers, effectively fending off challenges from Toby Tiangco, Duke Frasco, and Albee Benitez. Frasco, notably, was ousted from the National Unity Party for failing to support Romualdez.

II. NATIONAL ECONOMY

More of the Same

Marking its third year in office, the Marcos Jr. administration announced a Php50 minimum wage hike in the National Capital Region. It was timed, critics say, more as a publicity boost than genuine relief for struggling workers. Economic think tank IBON Foundation pointed out that this increase, like those in previous years, falls far short of addressing the widening gap between wages and the cost of living. The new nominal wage of Php695 remains Php522 below the estimated family living wage of Php1,217, barely easing the burden of inflation and daily expenses for millions of Filipino families.

IBON also emphasized that the real value of the wage hike is even smaller when adjusted for inflation, rising by only Php40 in purchasing power. The group criticized the Marcos administration for using token wage increases to appear benevolent while continuing to protect big business interests. For them, the people's call for substantial and meaningful wage reform is urgent and should not be reduced to a staged anniversary gesture.

Meanwhile, Marcos Jr.’s third year saw how corruption continues to pervade the Philippine government, where public office is used for personal gain and accountability is routinely evaded. The Senate’s delay in holding the Vice President’s impeachment trial reflects institutional complicity in shielding powerful figures. This is only the surface of a deeper crisis: systemic corruption and political patronage draining the public coffers of hundreds of billions, eroding trust and stalling social and economic development across the country.

Under the Marcos Jr. administration, the country has fallen further behind in addressing poverty, hunger, and inequality. According to the Philippine Statistics Authority, the Philippines is off-track in 79% of its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with 27% of targets actually regressing. Official poverty remains high, with pollster Social Weather Stations (SWS) reporting that 50% of families—some 14.1 million—consider themselves poor as of April 2025. Hunger has surged to affect 7.5 million families, while essential indicators like access to basic services, decent work, labor rights, and disaster resilience show little to no progress. Structural economic weaknesses persist, with agriculture and manufacturing at historic lows, stifling job creation and long-term growth.

Meanwhile, the richest Filipinos continue to amass extraordinary wealth. The top three tycoons have seen their net worth grow over fivefold since 2015, and the top 2% now hold as much wealth as the bottom 80% combined. Their deep ties to the country’s dominant political parties reinforce policies that favor elite and corporate interests. This can be seen in the fact that infrastructure spending is skewed for profit, while tax breaks have always been given to the wealthy. As for essential public and social services, austerity has always been the policy. Despite the administration predictably touting economic progress, the Philippines remains in the bottom third globally by income per capita. Now more than ever, it has become apparent that there needs to be a complete break from neoliberal policies. And there needs to be an adoption of a transformative, people-centered economic agenda to truly address poverty and inequality.

In June, public scrutiny on the practice of maintaining confidential and intelligence funds (CIF) has grown. Specifically, there have been calls to review and institutionalize transparency mechanisms for such funds. Because of public pressures, politicians like former Buhay Partylist representative Lito Atienza advocated for the abolition of CIFs in civilian offices altogether, arguing it would shield taxpayers from systemic abuses. Think tanks and lawmakers called for stricter auditing by the Commission on Audit (COA), although no concrete reform proposals were tabled during the month. Among local politicians, former Vice President and incoming Naga City Mayor Leni Robredo has declared that she will be abolishing the use of confidential funds in her term.

III. GLOBAL AFFAIRS

South China Sea Dispute: Expanding Military Exercises

The Philippines expanded its military posture by conducting its seventh joint maritime exercise with treaty ally United States in the South China Sea, involving operations off Occidental Mindoro and Zambales. This included the deployment of the newly commissioned guided-missile frigate BRP Miguel Malvar. In a strategic shift, Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro also announced the Philippines' adoption of a “one-theatre” operational approach, led by Japan, to integrate military coordination across the East and South China Seas. The plan includes a coordinating center to be established by December, involving allies such as Australia and the United States.

Meanwhile, tensions on the ground continued to escalate. Confrontations between Chinese and Philippine vessels, including incidents involving water cannons and collisions near Second Thomas Shoal (Rén'ài Jiāo, 仁愛礁), have raised alarms about increasing risk to civilian lives and property. On June 8, a Chinese fishing vessel ran aground near Thitu Island (Pag-asa Island), prompting a humanitarian but cautious response from the Philippine side. Local communities, especially fishermen, continue to claim harassment and reduced access to fishing grounds due to Chinese maritime presence.

Diplomatic tensions also flared. China rebuked the European Union for criticizing its actions in the South China Sea and warned the Philippines against depending on “external forces” to assert maritime claims. In a notable response, Beijing imposed entry bans on former Philippine Senator Francis Tolentino, citing his vocal support for the newly enacted Philippine Maritime Zones Act, which legally reinforces Manila’s claims in the disputed waters.

The Philippines Amid Increasing Global Instability

Meanwhile, the world is currently entering a dangerously unstable period marked by overlapping flashpoints that threaten to spiral into broader conflict. The coordinated missile and bombing attacks by Israel and the United States against Iran – coming amid already fragile nuclear negotiations – have dramatically heightened tensions in the Middle East, risking a wider regional war with global consequences. At the same time, Russia’s continuing military campaigns in Ukraine (used by US-led NATO as a bridge for constricting and weakening Russia), despite ongoing but stalled peace negotiations, underscores a growing trend of “great powers” asserting dominance through force rather than diplomacy. These dual crises have revealed the fragility of international norms, the weakness of multilateral institutions, and a global order increasingly shaped by militarism, unilateralism, and the erosion of rules-based engagement.

The latest coordinated military assaults by the US and Israel on Iran are clear violations of international law and dangerous escalations of imperialist aggression. The unprovoked missile attacks and the assassination of four top Iranian generals are deliberate acts meant to sabotage ongoing nuclear negotiations between Iran and the US under the Trump administration. These moves undermine prospects for peaceful diplomacy and instead push the region closer to broader armed conflict.

Furthermore, these attacks form part of a larger historical pattern of foreign domination and hegemonic control in the Middle East, aimed at suppressing sovereign nations and securing strategic access to energy routes and geopolitical chokepoints. The long standing records of occupation, intervention, and destabilization by both the U.S. and Israel reflect an imperialist agenda, not a pursuit of peace. As CenPEG Chairperson Prof. Roland G. Simbulan states, such wars of aggression are about control, not diplomacy, and the world must not stay silent in the face of militarized domination. Civil society groups have called on the Filipino people to unite in solidarity with the people of Iran and all nations resisting foreign military imposition, and for the international community to reject these provocations and demand accountability.

As it stands, however, these geopolitical tensions carry profound implications for countries like the Philippines. As a nation heavily dependent on overseas labor, international trade, and strategic alliances, the Philippines faces growing economic and security vulnerabilities. Global instability disrupts energy markets, endangers migrant workers in conflict-prone regions, and heightens pressure to choose sides in intensifying power blocs. The Philippines' deepening military and diplomatic ties with the United States, especially amid escalating tensions with China in the South China Sea, place it in a precarious position. It has potentially exposed the country to retaliation or entanglement in broader conflicts. In this volatile global landscape, asserting an independent foreign policy and strengthening internal resilience and economic and political independence are more urgent than ever. #