Author: user user

In the next two days, many institutions will turn to remembering the atrocities of the martial law period. Often dubbed by historical revisionists as the ‘golden era’ in Philippine history, it was an overlooked period in time, marred by multiple offenses against humanity. Not all of us were born during that time; all we hear are stories that resonate so deeply in the present. With a president having the same surname as the dictator, it seems like we are confused about what will happen next.

That time was filled with military rule. My grandmother would say that they could not just leave the house at any time they wanted. They were forced to adhere to the soldiers’ commands, often getting scared to death. Others speak of extortion and torture, especially when they did not get what they wanted. Detractors would tell us to just forget and move on. The most difficult part is the latter, but it is always a choice not to forget. It is in remembering that we learn, supposedly, not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

We are seeing a repeat of those events in different forms: the silencing and threatening of the press, abuse of power, and many more. We are masked in a concept of freedom that we cannot even fully grasp. It is as if we are fooling ourselves while enjoying the liberty that we have now. I wish there was just someone who could cut across those who are dazed by that era. I wonder what it takes for them to believe that everything was real. Even the families of those who were victims live to tell the tale, but they, too, are often disregarded.

What happens next is still a blur. We are finding ourselves in a political turmoil, caught between two big political families. Both find themselves with a fanbase almost close to a cult. Their narratives are the same, including their spiels and convictions. It is as if they have been brainwashed with information only they want to believe. I feel sad that the truth is devalued unless more institutions stand up and teach what is supposed to be true.

I don’t know how many of us will still remember or if we still want to. It is indeed a choice, a hard one, but it just makes perfect sense. Remembering is not about being trapped in the past. It is about carrying its lessons into the present, especially when the same language of fear, power, and silence begins to sound familiar. Perhaps that is why memory matters most when it becomes uncomfortable.

We owe it to those who lived through that period to listen and to those who never came home to remember. Perhaps, we also owe it to ourselves to ask whether the freedoms we enjoy are being protected, or slowly being taken for granted. Forgetting may be easier but keep in mind that remembering requires courage. If history is meant to teach us anything, it is that forgetting has consequences.

President Marcos has no plans of stepping down, Malacañang said yesterday, after the camp of Vice President Sara Duterte said she is ready to replace him in case he resigns.

‘First of all, no one is going to resign,’ Palace press officer Claire Castro told GMA News.

Castro was responding to Duterte’s spokesman, Paolo Panelo, who defended the Vice President amid criticisms that her call for Marcos to resign was self-serving as she would benefit from it.

‘That’s just their wish, because the President is fulfilling his duties and working for the country, the nation and the people. So, if they wish for the President to resign, I’m sorry,’ Castro said.?

She also denied the Duterte camp’s allegations that the administration is controlling senators, the police and other government officials in connection with the Vice President’s impeachment case.

Castro said government agencies are simply carrying out their respective mandates.

Panelo earlier said Duterte was elected as the Vice President ‘so, she was actually the one the people voted for to replace the President if he would resign. So, I don’t think this is self-serving or, as some might say, a conflict of interest.’

‘Because for her and for many Filipinos, it’s not really good for the country for the President to remain in office,’ he said.

Duterte has declared her candidacy for the 2028 presidential elections.

The Vice President earlier branded Marcos as the ‘problem of the nation,’ accusing his administration of corruption, abuse and political harassment amid the cases filed against her and members of her family.

‘Let’s continue the clamor for our nation’s problem to leave, whose name is Bongbong Marcos. Resign! Leave!’ Duterte told her supporters at a recent rally at Quezon City Hall.

Marcos responded to Duterte’s attacks against him during an interview in New Delhi, India last week after attending the 18th BRICS Summit.

‘If she feels very angry, I suppose, with what’s happening to her, and I am the target of that anger, or the main target of that anger, what can I do? You cannot force anyone to love you,’ the President said.

Domestic shipping company Montenegro Shipping Lines Inc. has banned the loading of electric and hybrid vehicles aboard its vessels following recent findings on the ferry MV June Aster, which caught fire off Coron, Palawan last week.

In a memorandum, Montenegro Shipping Lines cited that the initial investigation on the passenger ferry indicated that the explosion and fire may have originated from an electric vehicle.

The probe also showed that the fire originated from the cargo hold while witnesses said they first heard an explosion, followed by smoke and then fire.

‘Effective immediately, all masters are hereby instructed not to allow any electric vehicle (EV) or hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) to be boarded or carried onboard our vessels whether for passenger or cargo carriage,’ the memorandum said.

It added that the measure is being implemented as a preventive safety precaution to minimize the risk of fire, explosion, thermal runaway and other potential hazards associated with electric and hybrid vehicle batteries during vessel operations.

MV June Aster was reportedly carrying five motorcycles, one electric car, one forklift, one pickup van and essential goods such as rice and eggs.

The Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) reported 77 fatalities, 43 survivors and eight missing passengers.

The PCG reactivated the Maritime Safety Investigation and Maritime Crime Investigation to determine those who are liable for the tragedy.

With several Philippine companies still pursuing plans for their respective initial public offerings (IPOs), one can’t help but wonder what they are seeing that many of us do not?

After all, the Philippine economy is facing headwinds on various fronts. The peso closed at P62.73 to the dollar on Sept. 17. Headline or overall inflation reached 6.1 percent last month. Foreign direct investment net inflows into the country plunged to its lowest monthly level in more than 11 years.

These headwinds are also reflected in the Philippine stock market. The PSE index closed at 5,958.64 also last Sept. 17, with higher oil prices and the peso’s weakness expected to weigh further on investor sentiment.

But despite these economic troubles, potential entrants to the Philippine stock exchange remain interested. Two are already underway, that of Mynt Inc. (GCash’s parent company) and VITRO REIT of PLDT, with at least five other companies considering their own IPOs next year.

The presence of several potential IPOs in the PSE pipeline appears counterintuitive. But companies do not decide to pursue an IPO just based on how an economy is performing at a given time. Their decisions also reflect expectations about future business and market conditions.

Likewise, difficult macroeconomic conditions do not necessarily prevent companies with strong fundamentals and long-term growth prospects from entering the public market.

Take the case of Mynt. AB Capital Securities estimates its equity value at P531 billion to P834 billion, citing its structural growth, established profitability and substantial room to further monetize its customer base. It says that this fintech company deserves a premium valuation due to these factors. Morgan Stanley also highlighted Mynt’s profitability, with the company generating P17.2 billion in net income in 2025, a net margin of 21.6 percent and a return on equity of 32.1 percent. Mynt’s net margin during the first half of 2026 strengthened to 25.2 percent and it estimates that the firm could generate P21.2 billion in net income in 2026.

Mynt’s premium valuation is a claim about the future, analysts say. Investors are not being asked to value the company solely on what it makes today but on what its market position, large customer base and expanding financial ecosystem could generate in the years ahead.

These current economic headwinds have buried more optimistic expectations about our economic recovery. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Governor Eli Remolona Jr. has said that the economy could fully recover in 2027. Multilateral institutions and credit rating agencies also expect the economy to rebound.

The current IPO pipeline may reflect a similar expectation. Companies preparing to list today are not making decisions based on the economy’s state now but are making a bet on 2027 and beyond.

While IPO activity should not be treated as the sole proof of economic recovery, it deserves greater attention alongside other forward-looking indicators of business and investor confidence. Large IPOs may attract foreign portfolio investors and generate capital inflows, providing some support to the peso. The public too should also look forward to these offerings since they provide additional investment opportunities in productive domestic assets.

Impartial justice

The Supreme Court recently overturned the 2018 conviction by the Sandiganbayan of former First Lady Imelda Marcos for violations of the anti-graft law, saying the prosecution failed to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The case filed against Marcos accused her as a member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa (IBP) then of having financial or pecuniary interest in a number of entities that were used to hold and transfer at least $200 million abroad through foreign bank accounts. The Sandiganbayan said that she participated in the management of these foundations which is a financial or pecuniary interest prohibited by the 1973 Constitution and is therefore guilty of violating Section 3h of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in seven criminal cases.

Marcos was convicted of violating a constitutional prohibition applicable to Cabinet members. No similar prohibition however was imposed on members of the IBP. However, the information in the criminal cases charged her in her capacity as a member of the IBP.

According to the High Tribunal, public interest could not substitute for the evidentiary standards required in criminal proceedings.

The SC noted that there was a fatal disparity between the allegations in the information and the legal basis for her conviction by the Sandiganbayan.

‘The accused may only be convicted of the crime charged. Since she was charged in her capacity as a member of the IBP and for violating the constitutional proscriptions applicable to such position, she cannot be convicted of violating the prohibition applicable to Cabinet members. Her right to due process was violated when the Sandiganbayan convicted her of an offense which she had not been legally informed of, warranting acquittal,’ it said.

It added that evidence used by the prosecution were inadmissible and lack probative value. ‘Relevant Swiss documents were not properly authenticated and prosecution failed to present credible witnesses who could have attested to the genuineness and due execution of the documents. Thus, they are inadmissible as evidence. And being hearsay evidence, the documents cannot be given credence, for these do not have probative value,’ the Court held.

And since Section 3h prohibits Cabinet members from having financial or pecuniary interest in any business and the prosecution failed to establish that the foundations were engaged in business, the prosecution likewise could not establish another element of the offense, it added.

This most recent decision of the High Court dated June 10 but made public only recently serves as a reminder that even the most controversial public figures remain entitled to the protection of the rules that govern everyone, including those many have already judged. As emphasized by the SC, the rules on the sufficiency of allegations in the information and the admissibility and probative weight of evidence, in so far as they may cause injury to the rights of the accused to due process of law, cannot be casually brushed aside by the invocation of substantial justice and public interest.

‘When the Court dons its robe, inclinations and personal beliefs are set aside. It is the constitutionally mandated duty of the Court to dispense justice in an impartial manner,’ the SC emphasized.