How the Man Who Let Flood-Scam Suspects Choose Their Cells Suddenly Discovered the Crime of Hurting Marcos Feelings
By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — November 19, 2025
1. The Grand Opening: ₱118 Billion Vanishes, But the Microphone is the Real Criminal
At the foot of the People Power Monument — the same altar where two EDSAs buried a dictatorship and a kleptocracy — ordinary citizens dared to repeat the three most dangerous words in Philippine history: “Tama na, sobra na, palitan na.” The government’s response? Not an investigation into the ₱118-billion flood-control plunder that turns Metro Manila into Venice every monsoon. No. The Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Secretary Jonvic Remulla announces he will “probe seditious calls.” Yes, you read that right. The money is missing. The people are drowning. But the real emergency is a microphone.
2. Jonvic Remulla and the Miracle of Selective Outrage
Let us be charitable for exactly five seconds. Secretary Remulla claims he is merely upholding Article 139 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) on sedition and Article 142 on inciting to sedition. Freedom, he lectures, comes with “responsibility.” Five seconds over. Jonvic, where was this passion when you proudly declared that high-profile flood-scam suspects could pick their own detention facilities? Where was your “responsibility” sermon when entire provinces were underwater because the ₱118 billion vanished into thin air? Selective indignation: now available in Remulla flavor.
3. Constitutional Slapdown: When “Resign” Is Suddenly a Four-Letter Word
The 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 4 is blunt: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech…” Calling for a president’s resignation is the gold standard of protected political speech. The Supreme Court has said so repeatedly:
- People v. Feleo (1933): sedition requires a tumultuous uprising — not hurt feelings in Malacañang.
- Gonzales v. COMELEC (1969) and Chavez v. Gonzales (2008): the “clear and present danger” test is nowhere to be found here.
- Estrada v. Desierto (2001): the exact same “AFP withdraw support” rhetoric that toppled Estrada was not mass-prosecuted for sedition.
Funny how history only becomes criminal when your name is Marcos.
4. The Coming Farce: How This “Case” Will Die in Three Acts
- Act I – DILG “investigation”
- Act II – Referral to Department of Justice (DOJ) preliminary investigation (Rule 112, Rules of Court)
- Act III – Motion to Quash → Supreme Court graveyard (see Bayan v. Ermita (2006))
Even if the case collapses — and it will — the chilling effect is already the victory. Congratulations, Jonvic: prior restraint without firing a single bullet.
5. Chess Moves for Tyrants and for the People
The Palace playbook:
- Pretend it’s a “narrow, transparent inquiry” (damage control mode)
- Or go full authoritarian and watch the Supreme Court humiliate you on live television
The people’s counter-play:
- Preserve full unedited videos
- File constitutional challenges on day one
- Turn every hearing into a press conference about the ₱118-billion heist
- Make Remulla the unwilling poster boy for the newest government slogan: “Words hurt more than missing billions.” Coming soon to a billboard near Malacañang
6. Choose Your Ending
Ending A (Highly Unlikely)
Government wins → precedent: calling for resignation = jail time. Welcome to dictatorship 2.0.
Ending B (99.9% Probability)
Government loses → Marcos humiliated, rallies explode, ₱118-billion scandal stays front-page forever.
7. Final Verdict – No Mercy
To Jonvic Remulla:
Drop the circus. Investigate the real criminals — the ones who stole ₱118 billion while children drowned. Stop auditioning for the role of Marcos’s personal attack dog.
To the Department of Justice:
Dismiss this trash the moment it lands on your desk. Do not launder Malacañang’s dirty political laundry.
To every Filipino reading this:
No fear. No silence.
Let the call thunder across the nation:
“Marcos, resign” is not a crime—it is the sovereign voice of every Filipino,
forever shielded by the Bill of Rights.
–Barok
Key Citations
- Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. 1987, art. 3, sec. 4, Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines.
- Revised Penal Code of the Philippines. Act No. 3815, 8 Dec. 1930, Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines.
- People v. Feleo, G.R. No. 39227, 14 Oct. 1933, LawPhil Project,
- Gonzales v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-27833, 18 Apr. 1969, LawPhil Project.
- Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, 15 Feb. 2008, LawPhil Project.
- Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, 2 March 2001, LawPhil Project.
- Bayan Muna v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169838, 25 Apr. 2006, LawPhil Project.
- Sigales, Jason. “DILG to Probe ‘Seditious’ Marcos Ouster Calls at QC Rally.” Inquirer.net, 17 Nov. 2025.
- de Villa, Kathleen. “Group Blasts DILG’s Remulla over Flood Control Scam Detention Remark.” INQUIRER.net, 21 Oct. 2025.
- “Forthwith” to Farce: How the Senate is Killing Impeachment—And Why Enrile’s Right (Even If You Can’t Trust Him)
- “HINDI AKO NAG-RESIGN!”
- “I’m calling you from my new Globe SIM. Send load!”
- “Mahiya Naman Kayo!” Marcos’ Anti-Corruption Vow Faces a Flood of Doubt
- “Meow, I’m calling you from my new Globe SIM!”
- “PLUNDER IS OVERRATED”? TRY AGAIN — IT’S A CALCULATED KILL SHOT
- “Shimenet”: The Term That Broke the Internet and the Budget
- “We Did Not Yield”: Marcos’s Stand and the Soul of Filipino Sovereignty
- “We Gather Light to Scatter”: A Tribute to Edgardo Bautista Espiritu
- $150M for Kaufman to Spin a Sinking Narrative
- $2 Trillion by 2050? Manila’s Economic Fantasy Flimsier Than a Taho Cup
- $26 Short of Glory: The Philippines’ Economic Hunger Games Flop
KWEBA ni BAROK 
Leave a comment