In 1991 and 2015, the INC successfully mobilized its members against the incumbent administrations, making a powerful statement: when civil authorities overstep their authority and harm the well-being of INC members, the Church has a doctrinal duty to engage in expressive activities. However, one might question how this principle aligns with broader calls for justice and accountability in today’s political landscape. It’s important for the INC to clarify its stance on justice for all citizens to clearly understand what they’re doing.

Today, the Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) plans to gather 100,000 supporters at the People Power Monument and Liwasang Bonifacio. The purpose is straightforward: to rally in support of their member, Senator Rodante Marcoleta, who faces potential plunder charges for allegedly receiving 70 million pesos while serving as a congressman.

Marcoleta confessed to accepting these funds but failed to report them in his Statement of Contributions to the COMELEC. By not disclosing these amounts as campaign contributions, Marcoleta treated them as non-electoral donations, raising serious concerns. Some may question the strength of the evidence or the legal basis of these charges. Providing thorough context on the legal standards and evidence can effectively persuade the audience of the gravity of this situation.

Even the Ombudsman is questioning—what exactly is the nature of this money if it isn’t campaign funds? Let’s not forget that Marcoleta received these funds while serving as a sitting Congressman. The Ombudsman clearly states that he violated the anti-plunder law, which explicitly prohibits government officials from accepting money or gifts while in office. Marcoleta cannot claim it was merely a loan—why accept funds from multiple private individuals? Or did he obtain this money through financial or business interests tied to the companies involved?

Whether or not Marcoleta broke the law, the facts remain stark: he must face the consequences and present his case in court. As a lawyer, he must realize that the charges stem from his own admissions. If he himself did not categorize those funds as campaign contributions, then what were they for?

These issues cannot be resolved by a mere show of support at EDSA. Marcoleta presents himself as a credible lawyer capable of mounting his defense; so why involve his Church in this controversy? This demonstration may inadvertently undermine his position. Is Marcoleta really aiming to be seen as a top lawyer hiding behind the reputation of his religion?

This rally should align with the doctrines established by INC founder, Ka Felix Manalo. The Pasugo outlines three vital reasons for the Church to mobilize its members: when civil authorities interfere with Church affairs, when leadership determines a response to specific issues or government policies, and when the people’s well-being is at stake.

So, I ask—what of these conditions warrants today’s rally? INC spokesperson Edwin Zaballa asserts that this demonstration aims to protest the erroneous charges against Marcoleta and the administration’s perceived “selectivity” in the flood control project scandal.

I agree that the INC has united its supporters to make a vital point. This administration appears tone-deaf to the people’s concerns. Perhaps this is because they believe they can act without consequence. We see a nation entangled in oligarchs’ control, who blatantly disregard fairness. It’s time for this administration to face the repercussions; they need to either listen to the people or bear the consequences.

The call to address this perceived selective justice is well-founded. The President and his advisers may have engaged in strategic negotiations with contractors and fellow politicians to shield certain individuals while punishing others. The Ombudsman works to dispel this perception, noting that evidence against former Speaker Martin Romualdez is mounting as more information about his involvement comes to light.

People are right to ask—what was Sandro Marcos’s role in this scandal? What about the other contractors, including Gardiola, Eric Yap, and the fifteen others named by the President? What is the status of those investigations? While Senators Jinggoy and Bong Revilla await trial, what about the Executive’s son, the Secretary, his grandson, and his associates, particularly Budget Secretary Pangandaman?

In the pursuit of fairness, we must ensure that these individuals undergo thorough inquiries, reaffirming the audience’s deep longing for justice and accountability in governance.

We must demand parallel hearings for these corruption cases, especially given the imminent impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, to ensure that justice is applied equally to all. As I wrote in my book “Re-engineering Damaged and Rotten Filipino Institutions,” the longer this issue remains unresolved, the worse our economy will be and the lower public trust in our government will become.

There must be a parallel hearing for these corruption-scandal probes, particularly the impending impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, to emphasize the need for impartial investigations. I disagree, though, that the vice president should also benefit from this selectivity in meting out justice. Strong evidence discovered by the House Committee on Justice establishes probable cause.

I remember what Jesus told the Sadducees and the Pharisees when they criticized those who violated the law of Moses. Jesus mocked them, saying they notice the sins of others but not the logs in their own eyes, reminding us that justice must apply equally and without hypocrisy.

We should thank the INC for demonstrating against selective justice, but we criticize them for trying to protect Senator Marcoleta, Madame VP Duterte, and her ilk from prosecution.

Authorities do not charge Marcoleta with something baseless, and the impending arrest does not stem from a political agenda to prevent him from participating in the impeachment trial; oh no. The same goes for Sara, who holds accounts, particularly at several banks, totaling 6 billion pesos. She even admitted to not inputting these into her Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SALN), highlighting the need for consistent accountability.

YES to the call for the eradication of selective justice. NO to being used as protection fodder by political personalities who are as guilty as hell.

So, if I were Mr. Marcoleta, I would submit to the Principalities, as the Lord Jesus Christ did when Judas reported him to the religious authorities.