Marcos calls for airtight cases built on solid evidence
President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. underscored the need for airtight cases against corrupt officials as the government intensifies its battle against corruption in public infrastructure projects. In a recent interview with the Manila Bulletin’s “The Sit Down,” he warned that hasty charges based on weak evidence could do more harm than good, potentially staining the integrity of the justice system and eroding public trust.
The president’s remarks come amid growing public demand for accountability for officials implicated in systemic corruption, particularly in flood-control and other infrastructure initiatives. He emphasized that while many accused individuals may be guilty in some form, prosecutors must rely on robust legal foundations before bringing them to court.
“We know many of these people are not innocent. But if you’re going to bring them to court, you must have a strong case,” Marcos said, framing due process as essential to legitimate governance. He cautioned against filing cases prematurely, noting the dangers of a prosecutor’s rushed or incomplete presentation of evidence.
He illustrated the risk with a blunt example: “Look, what happens — we rush things, our evidence is incomplete, our evidence is weak, but we insist, and then we lose the case. Can you imagine?” The destabilizing impact of such outcomes, he argued, would be far worse than the political headaches that accompany lengthy investigations.
The president’s comments reflect a broader policy stance: pursue accountability without compromising the rule of law. He asserted that every government action must be grounded in due process, saying, “We have to follow the law. Otherwise, whatever we do is not legitimate.” He added a firm commitment to going after the guilty while protecting the integrity of the legal process.
Marcos’s emphasis on evidence-based prosecutions aligns with ongoing efforts to strengthen legal coordination among anti-corruption agencies. The administration has signaled a renewed push to improve coordination across agencies involved in investigating irregularities in public spending and infrastructure projects. The aim is not only to expose wrongdoing but to ensure that the machinery of law operates with fairness and precision.
Analysts note that the president’s stance could influence how anti-corruption investigations are conducted moving forward. By prioritizing robust forensic work, thorough document review, and clear chains of custody for evidence, the administration hopes to deter corruption while preserving the rights of the accused. In high-stakes infrastructure schemes, where delays and cost overruns have sparked public frustration, the integrity of the prosecutorial process becomes as important as the cases themselves.
Observers say that the real test lies in sustaining momentum without rushing to judgment. The government’s challenge will be to maintain public confidence while demonstrating tangible results—arrests, charges, and successful prosecutions—driven by well-founded evidence rather than political expediency.
In his interview, Marcos reiterated a core principle: accountability must be achieved through due process and the rule of law. He pledged that the administration would “go after the guilty ones,” but only with cases built on solid, legally defensible grounds. This approach, he argued, is essential to maintaining the legitimacy of anti-corruption efforts and ensuring that reforms in governance deliver lasting results for the Filipino people.
Implications for governance and reform
The president’s remarks signal a cautious but resolute approach to anti-corruption work. As investigations continue into infrastructure and public spending, the emphasis on airtight cases could influence how accusations are framed, how evidence is collected, and how prosecutors present their arguments in court. If successfully implemented, this strategy may strengthen public trust in government institutions while reinforcing the importance of due process in high-profile prosecutions.
Ultimately, the administration’s commitment to fairness and due process may determine whether anti-corruption efforts translate into meaningful reforms or face skepticism over process versus outcome.
