Good day to all our fellow countrymen. Once again, Pinoy TV returns with another episode that does not shy away from uncomfortable truths, does not pretend neutrality, and refuses to remain silent on issues shaking both local and global politics.

In today’s discussion, we focus on two major developments.
First, the controversial decision of a Russian court to sentence ICC prosecutor Karim Khan and several International Criminal Court judges to prison terms ranging from three to fifteen years.
Second, Vice President Sara Duterte’s recent statement expressing heartfelt gratitude to the Filipino people for their continued support despite unending political attacks and character assassination.

ICC SENTENCED BY RUSSIA: JUSTICE OR A GLOBAL POWER STRUGGLE?

The sentencing of ICC officials by a Russian court sent shockwaves across the international community. For years, the ICC has positioned itself as the ultimate arbiter of global justice, freely issuing warrants and judgments against leaders of sovereign states. Now, the question many are asking is simple yet profound: who has the authority to judge whom?

If the ICC believes it has the moral and legal right to prosecute leaders it deems guilty, should its own officials be immune from accountability? Or does “international justice” only apply when it is politically convenient?

This development exposes what many have long suspected—that the ICC is not merely a legal institution, but also a political instrument used within a broader struggle for global power and influence.

SHELLO MAGNO AND THE PROBLEM OF ACCUSATIONS WITHOUT EVIDENCE

Back home, public attention has once again turned to Professor Shello Magno of the University of the Philippines, who has been vocal in attacking Vice President Sara Duterte. His repeated demand is familiar: “If there is nothing to hide, open your bank accounts.”

But this argument reveals a deeper flaw in logic. In any functioning legal system, the burden of proof lies with the accuser, not with the accused. You do not open bank accounts so critics can go on a fishing expedition in search of a crime. Without evidence, there is no case—no matter how loudly accusations are shouted.

What frustrates many Filipinos is the selective outrage. While corruption is openly admitted—even by the President himself—critics focus almost exclusively on Sara Duterte, despite failing to present concrete proof of wrongdoing.

WHY IS VP SARA BEING TARGETED?

Former Supreme Court Associate Justice Noel Tijam offered a blunt explanation:
Sara Duterte is being targeted because she threatens a power structure built on corruption, incompetence, and impunity.

This explains why some legal commentators and political critics aggressively attack her while remaining conspicuously silent about questionable actions within the current administration. It is easier to attack a perceived threat than to confront those already in power.

THE DPWH BUDGET AND A SUSPICIOUS SILENCE

Another issue fueling public anger is the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) budget, widely considered the most problematic portion of the national budget year after year. During the recent bicameral conference committee meeting—broadcast live—documents from nearly all agencies were ready for review. Except for DPWH.

This raises troubling questions. Are figures being adjusted? Are documents being “fixed” before public scrutiny? Filipinos have repeatedly witnessed massive corruption in flood control and infrastructure projects, yet accountability remains elusive.

Ironically, while alleged anomalies involving real projects and real money persist, the individual being relentlessly investigated and vilified is Vice President Sara Duterte—despite the absence of evidence such as cash-filled suitcases, kickbacks, or secret percentages.

A GENUINE MESSAGE OF GRATITUDE FROM VP SARA

Amid these attacks, VP Sara delivered a short but sincere message. She thanked the Filipino people for standing by her—from 2015, 2016, 2019, and 2022 to the present—and for their ability to distinguish between political smear campaigns and truth.

She emphasized that the support she receives is not for her alone, but for the entire Office of the Vice President, whose work is carried out by countless individuals behind the scenes. Many observers noted that her gratitude did not feel rehearsed or performative, but genuine.

WHY DO PEOPLE CONTINUE TO SUPPORT SARA DUTERTE?

The answer, according to many supporters, is painfully simple: there are no convincing alternatives.

Public trust in the Marcos administration is steadily eroding. Political dynasties and family-run power structures have exhausted the people’s patience. Meanwhile, so-called alternatives—Tulfo, Remulla, Hontiveros, Robredo—fail to inspire confidence among large segments of the population.

Filipinos have seen enough politicians who excel at speeches, moral posturing, and blame-shifting, yet falter when it comes to solving real problems. The country does not lack laws. What it lacks are leaders who understand the problems on the ground and know how to address them decisively.

THE FAILURE OF POLITICS BASED ON BLAME

Critics often point out a worrying pattern: when problems arise, some leaders instinctively blame predecessors instead of offering solutions. Filipinos are already frustrated with a government that spends more time pointing fingers than fixing systems.

People fear that under certain opposition figures, the same pattern would continue—endless blame, endless excuses, and little progress. This fatigue is one reason why support for Sara Duterte remains strong despite constant attacks.

CONCLUSION

Despite relentless criticism, legal threats, and political maneuvering, one reality remains unchanged: Vice President Sara Duterte continues to enjoy the loyalty of a significant portion of the Filipino people.

This support is not blind devotion. It is rooted in comparison—between action and rhetoric, between perceived strength and proven failure. In a political landscape filled with recycled faces and hollow promises, many see her as the last remaining symbol of meaningful change.

And perhaps that is what truly unsettles her critics the most.