MANILA — Akbayan Party‑list Representative Perci Cendaña has criticized Senator Imee Marcos for her comments suggesting that so‑called “soft pork” allocations could be used by the House of Representatives to advance a new impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte.

Cendaña warned that such remarks risk misleading the public, stressing that any impeachment move in 2026 would be based on unresolved allegations tied to Duterte’s actions both as former Department of Education secretary and now as vice president. 

“Kung magkakaroon man ng impeachment ngayong 2026, 'yan ay dahil doon sa mga unresolved na mga issues parin, doon sa pang-aabuso sa kapangyarihan ni VP Sara nung siya ay DepEd Secretary at ngayon na siya ay Vice President ng ating bansa,” he said.

The lawmaker underscored that the controversy centers on alleged abuse of power and questions surrounding the use of public funds, particularly intelligence and confidential funds. 

“Huwag nating lituhin ang taumbayan. Ang usapin dito pang-aabuso sa kapangyarihan, ang usapin dito yung nawawalang milyon-milyong piso doon sa intelligence at confidential funds na matapos ang isang tao ay hindi parin pinapaliwanag ng Bise Presidente,” Cendaña added.

He also took a swipe at Marcos, questioning her role in raising the issue. “Minsan nga dahil dito sa mga sinasabi ito ng senador, napapaisip tayo kung siya ba ay senador o presidente ng Sara Duterte fans club? Ano yung kanyang trabaho, legislator ba o defender-in-chief?”

The exchange comes amid heightened political tensions as Vice President Duterte continues to face scrutiny over her handling of confidential and intelligence funds during her tenure at the Department of Education. The issue has been a flashpoint in recent months, with opposition lawmakers and civil society groups demanding transparency and accountability.

Marcos, for her part, has previously defended Duterte, arguing that criticisms against her are politically motivated. Her suggestion that “soft pork” could be used to fuel impeachment efforts drew sharp reactions from critics who insist that the matter should remain focused on alleged misuse of funds and abuse of authority.

As the political climate intensifies in 2026, Cendaña’s remarks highlight the opposition’s determination to keep the spotlight on unresolved allegations against the vice president, while also challenging the role of senators like Marcos in shaping public perception.

Is This About Protecting the Vice President or Protecting the Truth?

The noise around “soft pork” misses the point. Impeachment talk did not arise from budget perks. It arose from unresolved questions about power and money. Millions in confidential and intelligence funds remain unexplained. Those facts have not changed.

Shifting the conversation reframes accountability as politics. It blurs issues that deserve clarity. Oversight becomes “attack.” Questions become “motives.” The public is left sorting rhetoric instead of answers.

Legislators are elected to scrutinize power, not shield it. Defending personalities over probing records weakens institutions and erodes trust. If allegations are baseless, transparency should end the debate quickly.

Are leaders protecting the vice president, or protecting the truth Filipinos deserve to know?