Opening Pandora’s Box

The Sept. 21 demonstrations against corruption carried deep symbolism. People poured into the streets of Metro Manila, their anger focused on anomalous flood control projects. The date was not lost on anyone: it was the 53rd anniversary of the proclamation of Martial Law in 1972. The demonstrations were, at once, about the present and the past.

Ironically, the spark came from President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. himself. By exposing and then ordering investigations into a corruption scandal, he opened the proverbial Pandora’s Box. What may have begun as a bid to control the narrative quickly became less predictable. Once the lid was lifted, anger took on a life of its own.

The protests may well be the unintended consequence of the President’s initiative. In exposing corruption, he invited scrutiny not just of officials and agencies but also of his own family’s legacy. By pushing for reform, whatever his reason, the box is now open, and the forces unleashed cannot be contained.

At the same time, the President’s offensive against corruption created an atmosphere of expectancy. For a public numbed by recurring scandals, his words, actions, and the ensuing events sparked a faint flicker of hope: that this time, the powerful might not be spared.

Yet the historical baggage of the Marcos family casts a long shadow. To some, this looks less like genuine reform and more like false hope, a calibrated move to address public dissatisfaction with the government, win back approval ratings after the midterm elections, and consolidate political legitimacy before 2028.

The Pandora’s Box image is apt. Once opened, the narrative unleashes both real anger against corruption and unavoidable reminders of the Marcos family’s past. This is the risk the President may have unwittingly taken, and only time can tell when and how the situation will end.

The possible motivations are layered. The 2025 midterms were sobering with the administration’s coalition underperforming, and public discontent harder to ignore. By going after corruption in flood control projects, the President taps into one of our people’s most visceral grievances, perhaps betting that a bold gesture might help his government recover ground for 2028.

There is also the benefit of control. By exposing the shenanigans at Public Works himself and leading the charge, he frames the issue on his terms. He positions himself as the reformer of a broken system, even if that system is historically tied to his own lineage.

At the same time, his campaign against ghost projects has struck both allies and opponents, suggesting either a willingness to sacrifice friends or a calculated move that selective casualties, including within his own circle, demonstrate credibility.

The entanglement of House Speaker Martin Romualdez, his cousin and strongest ally, in allegations tied to anomalous projects complicates the picture. Was this an unintended casualty of a scattershot probe, or deliberate distancing? If unintended, it shows the danger of opening Pandora’s Box: once unleashed, corruption inquiries can scorch even kin, eroding family solidarity.

If calculated, the President is wagering that burning bridges, even familial ones, is worth the price of political survival to 2028, and maybe beyond. Either way, the move risks splitting his power base at a delicate time, without any certainty that the nation’s best interest will be served.

Likewise entangled are Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Joel Villanueva, Representative Zaldy Co, former Caloocan Representative Mary Mitzi Cajayon-Uy, former Senator Bong Revilla, and former Public Works Undersecretary Roberto R. Bernardo. Senators Estrada and Revilla had been at the center of the Janet Napoles “pork barrel” scandal a decade ago — charged, jailed, and then acquitted, only to return to the Senate with fresh mandates.

Now, once again, they are cast in a bad light in a new corruption scandal that also involves the misuse of the national budget. This implies that those who tried to reform the budget system by going after Napoles and her beneficiaries may have lit themselves up for nothing. The budget process remains as problematic as ever. And the electorate, seemingly blind to history or accountability, votes back into office even those tainted by scandal.

This validates the argument that anti-corruption initiatives cannot stand alone. They must be coupled with political, fiscal, and electoral reform. Without structural change, without breaking the hold of patronage, “pork barrel,” and celebrity politics, the fight against corruption collapses into a mere spectacle.

From whatever angle, the President’s move to expose corruption in flood control projects was bold and decisive, and credit must be given to him. If only people could judge him solely on this one act, the choice to expose and investigate corruption despite personal and political risk.

He could, for a moment, embody the statesman willing to face down a monster that has undone past presidents, becoming a catalyst for reform. He could be seen lighting the way at the risk of his own political loss. Or he could be dismissed simply as a shrewd political strategist and operator, performing boldness only to salvage trust ratings without real intent to cleanse institutions.

The lid has been pried open. Now the questions multiply, and the ghosts of the past walk freely again. Pandora’s Box rarely closes without consequence. One can only wonder how long this political episode will play out, and what else the President stands to lose or gain in the process.

One recalls the words of Islamic scholar, reformer, and theologian Muhammad Rashid Rida (1865-1935), who was born in what is now known as present-day Lebanon. An advocate for creating an “Ideal Caliphate,” he once said: “To revolt on behalf of an ignorant people is like setting yourself on fire in order to light the way for a blind man.”

Is the President, and all those who claim reform, advocating for or defending a people unwilling or unable to wean themselves from the system of patronage politics? Noble intentions alone do not guarantee meaningful change, especially if those they seek to help are incapable of receiving that help.

The President would not want to be the image of a man setting himself on fire: sacrificing political capital, credibility, and even family alliances to light a path, while risking being consumed by the flames before they illuminate anything. Perhaps the one-eyed can still be made to see the light before it dies out.

For reform to take hold, the voting public must also be willing to change and to wean themselves from election corruption. Unwillingness is not rooted in malice but in poverty, patronage, and celebrity politics. Voters choose leaders based on popularity, name recall, or handouts rather than track record or competence.

Those leading the charge against corruption may soon face a rude awakening: Philippine politics, even when up against an angry mob, may not easily yield to reform. There are limits, and perhaps heavy personal costs, when attempts at reform meet indifference or stubborn resistance. Voting behavior is a major factor to consider.

Many voters act not out of informed choice but out of constrained options, disinformation, or systemic conditioning. It is less about malice than about structural ignorance and survival politics. This shifts the blame away from individual voters to the system that fails to educate and empower them.

The system must change. At this point, follow-through is more than critical; it is crucially urgent and necessary. Without clear, resounding, immediate, and publicly acceptable reforms, the President may have unnecessarily set himself on fire in order to light the way for men who are blind by choice.

Just as the blind cannot see the light, a public trapped in patronage politics may be unable or unwilling to recognize budget and electoral reforms as beneficial. This is why the President must push on, no matter the consequences. The Independent Commission probing corruption in Public Works is only the beginning.

While corruption is investigated, political reforms must also take shape. This is the only guarantee that we will not return to the old ways. The President must march forward to stamp out systemic ignorance. The vicious recycling of ill-intentioned politicians is real, but not unbreakable.

The President should push Congress for practical reforms with visible results, not only in terms of fighting corruption but also in crafting the national budget, and in how people run for office and vote. Reform must anchor itself in tangible benefits that can be seen. Otherwise, the President may just end up only as a catalyst for deceptive expectation