MANILA, Philippines — Veteran columnist Ramon Tulfo has recently stirred controversy by reporting a purported strategy involving Henry Alcantara, Brice Hernandez, and JP Mendoza—collectively dubbed the “BGC Boys”—in connection with the multi-billion-peso flood control scam. According to Tulfo, the group is allegedly coordinating with Vice President Sara Duterte’s camp as impeachment proceedings loom, suggesting that a quid pro quo may be in play: a retraction or revision of their earlier statements implicating high-ranking officials in exchange for potential executive clemency should Sara Duterte win the presidency in 2028.

Tulfo claims that the BGC Boys are aware they could face plunder charges related to flood control anomalies. Yet, with Duterte’s prospective rise to the presidency, they reportedly anticipate possible pardons, commutations, or reprieves, highlighting the intricate link between political power and the justice system. The columnist also noted the importance of securing the support of allied senators, whose votes are critical in impeachment proceedings at the Senate.

This revelation, whether fully verified or not, raises broader questions about the intersection of politics, justice, and public trust. If political calculations begin to influence testimonies and legal proceedings, what does this imply for accountability in high-profile corruption cases? Moreover, it underscores how the electorate’s decisions in 2028 could have consequences far beyond policy, potentially affecting ongoing legal matters and the perceived impartiality of justice.

While speculation abounds, the situation highlights a persistent dilemma in Philippine governance: can the rule of law withstand the pressure of political machinations, or will legal outcomes continue to hinge on who holds power?

In the end, one question lingers: can justice remain impartial when political stakes are this high, or will accountability always be negotiable in the corridors of power? (Larawan: Brigada, Ramon Tulfo / Facebook)