The Philippine's 2025 Budget is the Most Corrupt! My Conversation w/ Prof. Anna Malendog Uy!

All right, good morning and good evening to everybody, to whomever is watching from the other side of the world. It's 8 o'clock my time here. I didn't even have coffee yet, so I'm starting my day with a glass of water. So good morning to you all and welcome to Geopolitical Trends, where truth matters. Very excited to be with you as always. I am also even more excited because of my guest. You all know Professor Anna Malandag. You've heard her before. She was willing and kind enough to once again allocate time for us because it's 10 PM her time. The lady has a busy day, and she was kind enough to come over, uh, here on the channel and to share some knowledge. So we got some very, very interesting, uh, uh, conversation and addressing the key topics. But before I'll do all this I want to remind you to join me tonight— today, I'm sorry, today at 12:15 for my live stream regarding President Trump's speech. I'm gonna decipher all that for you. And also remember to join me tomorrow at 19:00 hours, 7 PM, for my monthly conversation with Carl Zah. And on Sunday, I will be doing our community conversation. I will do that on Sunday at 12 clock. So, so before, again, I'll bring in my guest. If, uh, before I move on, the analysis you hear and the conversations you hear on this channel, you're not gonna hear it anywhere else. So, so if you are learning and enjoying this kind of free episodes here, so please make sure to subscribe and share this with all your friends and loved ones, for those who wants to know the truth, because that's what this channel is all about. So let me bring in my wonderful guest, Professor Anna Malindog. There she is. Hi, Anna.

Hi, David. Hi to all of your audience and hi to the community. Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to talk about critical issues that my country is facing right now, and it's really happy to be back here. Thank you so much.

Very, very excited because you bring in You bring into the surface information that I'm even finding out now, and even some people in Philippines are not able to hear. It's because the media is controlling the process. And I had somebody who asked me, why, why are you interested in Philippines? Well, I'm interested in the Philippines. First one reason, I've dealt with Filipino people. I have a, I have a lifetime friend like a brother to me. Is originally from Philippines. Filipino people are wonderful, and I found it, uh, my responsibility, if I have a platform like this, to provide a set setting where the truth is told so Filipino people can hear what's going on. Because the media, I feel, it's not sort of doing a service for the Filipino people. So, so let's start. And first of all, to those who do not know who Anna is, Professor Anna Malindag is a PhD candidate soon. We're gonna be calling her Dr. Malinda Gu. She's a candidate at the Institute of South-South Cooperation and Development at Peking University, very, very known institution in Beijing. So she is also a columnist, a writer for the Manila Times. And by the way, I am going to share with you the link to her recent article regarding what we're going to be talking about today, which is the budget of 2025, and she is also the Deputy Secretary General for the Association for Philippines-China Understanding. So we are very, very excited to have you here, Anna. So, Professor Anna, that's how I will address you. So, all right, let's, uh, let's start. Uh, I would like to start with, uh, the INC rally that took place. Uh, but before we do this, I'd like to share some pictures with the community, if you allow me. And then get your comments on this because, uh, we didn't— I found this information overseas, not even here in the US. So this is where I'll dig for information for my Filipino community that are watching this here. So I'm just gonna share the screen and let Anna comment on this. So, so here are some images here, guys, just for you to see what's going on here. So this, uh, rally, by the way, guys, took place on January 13th of this year. So a lot of people— I— this is my favorite, uh, uh, photo here. Peace for the Philippines. It's because I am concerned as an outsider looking in. I am concerned where things are headed in Philippines. So I'll turn it over to you, Anna. What's your take about this INC rally that took place?

Actually, the INC rally that happened last 13th of January is— it was actually coined or projected as a peace rally, but that rally also was not only staged in Metro Manila, it was all over the country. So there were simultaneous rallies from big cities and strategic areas across the country. So it was led by the INC or Iglesia ni Cristo. So they're the one really the main mobilizer for this rally. And then, but take note that it was not only the INC that was in these rallies all across the country. Non-INC members were also there and they also participated in solidarity. Even I, Attorney Harry Roque, and another good friend, Marlika, we were asked to have a coverage online for this rally. The rally is basically there, I mean, how it was projected by the INC, because they're the one leading it, and it was a peace rally in that sense. However, it was also a rally by which there were certain issues were floated, but in a very subtle way. By the way, David, approximately around 4 million, roughly 4 to 5 million People attended the rally all across the country, not only in Manila, because in Manila roughly around 2 million, I think, but all over the big cities also there are a lot of people who were in these rallies. And also it was also attended by other Christian organizations and even our Muslim brothers and sisters who were also there attending. So in terms of message, I think the message of the INC and those people who were in the rally in solidarity, and there was only an online rally in solidarity with that on-site rally was actually about peace. And also there was a subtle message that INC, as one of the strongest and the most powerful religious groups in the country, especially when you talk about election, because they have this command votes— if, let us say, um, you will be supported by INC, the whole membership, which actually roughly amounts to more than 5 million or 6 to 8, roughly in between 10 million and 5 million, and these people will— if, like, for example, the leadership of the INC will say that these are the, you know, the politicians that we will support in the election, all of these members will vote for those politicians that, you know, approved by the leadership of the INC. So in a way, the INC is very influential. It really has a number, it has the command votes, and also it's very organized and disciplined. It's quite independent in many ways. So in, in that rally, there were two there were critical issues that was floated, though very subtle, not really confrontative, not antagonistic, subtle but very clear, I think. The first one is peace. I think it has something to do with the issue that, you know, sometimes, more most often than not, when you talk about the Philippines, it is being used as a pawn, I think, by the United States. And also you have this seeming shadow that anytime soon the country will be engaged or will be used or will be dragged into a military conflict with this superpowers maneuvering in terms of geopolitics in the Asia-Pacific region. So in a way, that kind of call for peace. On the other hand, I think peace domestically, because as you can see, politically speaking, the political players are, you know, banging each other, have exchange of words, or the turmoil is there. So it's like calling for unity and peace that, you know, let's stop this because this is not good for the country, something to that effect. But One critical aspect though, David, is— and the whole community— is the call to no impeachment of Sara Duterte, the vice president. I think the message of INC and other people who were in that rally, the non-INC members, was very clear that they are supporting the initial statement of President Marcos Jr. saying that he is not for impeachment. So they were saying We are affirming your stand that you are not for impeachment, so we are not for impeachment of Sara Duterte. Because that was the initial— well, I, I'm not sure how sincere President Marcos is, was, or is until at this time with no impeachment, but these are his pronouncements before. So it seems like INC was saying, okay, we are supporting the president's statement that he is no to impeachment of the vice president Sara Duterte. So that was very evident, but very evident in that rally. And David, other than that, there was one member, a prominent member of the INC who is also a member of the House of Representatives, Congressman Marco Letta, who actually laid down the basic, the fundamental problems that the country is facing right now. He talked about the rising prices of goods and basic commodities in the country, which is very, very true because right now the price of rice— rice is basic staple for us. Is already around 60 pesos. And the promise of the President Marcos Jr. was he said that when he assumed office, he will make it sure that we will only have 20 pesos per kilo. But right now, I mean, the price of rice per kilo is around 60, 53, 57. It depends if it's good quality, you will pay more. If it's a little less quality, you pay a little less, but still expensive. So the other one is about the massive corruption that is taking place in the country. So that's one, one of the highlights in the speech of Cong. Marcoleta. The other one is the, um, what you call the Quad Committee in the House of Representatives, who is actually, for many Filipinos, it is being perceived as an alleged committee in, in the House of Representatives who are used to persecute the critics and the political opponents of the current administration. So he, he explained that, he, he talked about that, and Of course, the no to impeachment. I think he also highlighted that, and the rising criminalities and the rising crime rates in the Philippines. Because as you can see in the country right now, not only in Manila but different parts of the country, there are a lot of crimes that are happening. There are so many things that is going on. And I think subliminally he kind of presented also the defective foreign policy that Marcos Jr. has. So In totality, these are all the issues that was mentioned in the speech of Kong Markoleta, and he was the only prominent figure that was allowed to speak. Other than him, no other was invited, especially politicians. And the thing here is like, there was, from the time it was staged and up to the program, actually as early as 6 o'clock in the morning, there were already mobilization. You can see that in different places and even in Metro Manila, um, more than millions of people were already at the area where the rally was held. However, the program started at 4 PM, so there was a long time. From my analysis, there was a long time before the official program because I was thinking, and I— this is based on my analysis— that INC was waiting for a response coming from the government, coming from Marcos Jr. and the administration. And I think they were asking for something concrete as something that they think might change the current situation of the country. But it seems that it was not— it was— I mean, there was no response coming from Marcos Jr. and even from the House of Representatives. So the basic question right now is if INC and those people who participated in the rally on site were satisfied with the result. And the question is if there's a follow-up to that rally last June— last January 13th, and what would happen next? Because I don't think, um, those people who went there were satisfied of the response. And I think there was much response coming from the Office of the President, from the administration, and even from the House of Representatives, which is now being viewed— the Congress is now being viewed as the source or the whole of corruption in the country.

Yeah, yeah. And we're gonna be— excuse me— and we're gonna be detailing, guys, just for, for you to know, we're gonna be addressing the corruption, we're gonna be addressing the budgets and so forth. So before we move into that, and I like to go back into this issue of the rally, and the reason being because I, you know, you know me, I like to present both sides of the arguments. And I read elsewhere And please correct me if I'm wrong because you've been there, so you know. There were some writings stating that some within the rally were in support of the impeachment. Was that true?

I don't— I would not— I am not sure about that, but I don't think so. I don't think so because many, almost all people we have— I'm like, we have coverage of the whole day. From 8 o'clock until 7, we were covering the whole event. We have people on the ground who were reporting from different places about what's going on in the rally and who are speaking and what are the messages being presented by different groups in different parts of the Philippines. So far, from what we know and from the reports on the ground, there was no such thing because everyone who almost— let us say everyone in the— in, in who went to the rally very much, um, how they call, clear in their mind why they are there. And I think one of the concrete, um, reason why many people went there is the no to impeachment of the vice president message that INC actually was very much, um, vocal in saying that, you know, we are no to impeachment precisely because that is the stand of the president.

Oh, okay.

It's more like that.

So this one was, if I am to guess, was it a diversion?

Because yeah, that's a diversion.

Yeah, because they noticed, because they noticed if there were 4 million people attending those rallies and they all converge on the same message that the vice president should not be impeached, in other words, President Marcos should withdraw this kind of political saga that is sinking the country into more chaos. That means whomever stated this was nothing but a diversion, in my opinion.

Yeah, I, I don't think there was an element in there shouting for pro-impeachment of the vice president. But there was a rally, um, I think, um, last week or, yeah, a week ago, there was a rally, another rally, but not the INC rally that was actually was calling for the impeachment of Sara Duterte. This is another political group who are the left, who are from the left and from, you know, the political enemies of the Dutertes who were, you know, trying. But they— it was not really big rally, it was just a small number of people, and they were in a church, the Catholic Church in EDSA, and they were calling for the impeachment because they are— they were actually the one who filed for the impeachment case against Sara Duterte. So, but that, that was not the INC rally. The INC rally was very clear of its message, and everyone who went there knows that the stands that, that they are, you know, what, what is the stand that they have and why they, they went there to participate.

Yeah, and most the readings that I did support your arguments, all of the— and I read from different guys. I will provide you the link What I, of course, here in the US, it wasn't addressed in detail. Of course, they have to say, especially when you consider the relationship of Marcos Jr. with these two knuckleheads here, that's Austin and, and Blinken. They are gone. Good riddance anyway. So, but, uh, just, uh, one last point on this and we'll jump into— and I think if there is this counter, uh, rally to what took place with the NSA I am sure it is supported by this guy. This is President Marcos' cousin. Yes. And I found out, Anna, what the guy is dragging the Philippines into, what this guy is doing. And again, I am not judging. I am an outsider looking in, but I've been long— I've been around long enough to know how a politician can carve out the the, the path for destruction of a country. We have them right here in Washington as well.

Yeah, yeah, it's more about his ambition, Martin.

And we're gonna address that in, in a moment. So, so let's move on into— I'd like to talk about your, uh, art. By the way, uh, guys, I'm gonna share the link with you in the description here so you guys can see it. And, uh, in the description. This is Anna's recent article, so, so just check out the chat box here so you'll be able to— this from the Manila Times, and this is Anna's article regarding the national budget. So basically it's a very, very interesting article. It says, is 2025 national budget the most corrupt in the Philippines history. So I like to have your take on all this. First of all, Anna, how this issue of the budget corruption came about?

Well, the issue of the 2025 budget, which is now very controversial, David, in the Philippines, stems from different controversy, and that involves discrepancies, and it involves an issue of transparency and accountability of those who crafted the budget. And when you say crafted the budget, then we're talking about the Congress, both houses, because, you know, both houses are the one— I mean, the power of the purse is in the Congress. And in our situation, in the same way in the United States, it's the lower and the upper house. Now, the budget is roughly around $6.326 trillion. And the first issue here, actually, that's why it's many— actually, many critics and many Many Filipinos, even those who are legal experts and even former officials of government, they're saying— and not only me, but they are saying that it seems like the 2025 national budget is the most corrupt in Philippine history. The first issue there is about the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation, or what we call PhilHealth, by which it is a government— it's a government or state corporation that takes care of the health insurance quote unquote, of the Filipinos. So it's supposed to be funded because this is basic service and it has something to do with the health of Filipinos. And also, like me, I pay for some kind of amount of money for me to be a member of PhilHealth. So many Filipinos, almost majority, are part of this. In the 2025 national budget, this is just the— this is one of the issues that's very critical at the moment is They did not put allocation for PhilHealth, zero budget. And the justification is like this: it's because they said that the PhilHealth at the moment, it has what you call 500 billion pesos of reserves. So that is the justification. So that's why in the 2025 National Budget, no, no, zero allocation. But the thing here is like this, David Oualaalou, if PhilHealth will run out of money because they will now be running the whole organization from that reserve, what will happen to the access supposedly of all Filipinos to this health insurance that is a state-owned corporation and supposed to be the basic and primary responsibility of the government? That is one of the controversial issues with the 2025 national budget. Now there are fears that, for example, marginalized people, especially the ethnic minorities, the poor people in my country, will not have access to basic healthcare, especially if this reserve will run out. Precisely because PhilHealth has lots of services being offered to different sectors in my country, especially general population. However, it has also a lot of problems in terms of payments to hospitals, and even it's also an entity in my country that is surrounded by so many kinds of corruption issues. So this is one of the most critical issues at the moment when you talk about the 2025 budget. The other one which The other issue, which is also very important, and many even legal experts in my country would say that it's a violation of the constitution, is the education budget, the budget for our Department of Education. First, they kind of cut 10 billion to the computerization program of the Department of Education. Second, they're saying in our constitution, it's very evident in there, in 1987 constitution, that In a budget process, or any national budget for that matter, every year the Department of Education or education should have the highest budget. However, in this 2025 national budget, they're saying that it has the highest budget. However, actually it is not true because they circumvent the, the provision of the Constitution. Um, what they did is they included the budget of the military education. Like, for example, The military, um, the Philippine Military Academy, the PMA, which, you know, those who wants to be part of the armed forces, you have to go to that institution for you to be educated. On the other hand, the Philippine National Police Academy is for the police. The budget for this institution, these are educational but they're part of the security forces or military, was included in the educational budget. So in a way, you— the, the— in a way, the DepEd budget was bloated and justifying that it's still the highest in, in the national budget. However, there is a convention because supposedly, um, the budget for the PMA and the Philippine Military Police Academy should be with the DND, the Department of National Defense, and also from the DILG because PMA And also the Armed Forces is under the Department of National Defense, while our police, the PNP, the Philippine National Police, is under the Department of Interior and Local Government. So in a way, they should be there, but they put this in the DepEd, in the Department of Education, so appearing that the DepEd has the highest allocation. But substantially speaking, if you really scrutinize the budget in this regard, it's actually the Department of Public Works and Highways that has the highest budget. Though they also increased the budget for the Armed Forces of the Philippines. However, the problem, David, is like this: on the Department of Public Works and Highways, so these are infrastructure projects, it's a very, um, how do you call that, that's a very conflicting, um, um, situation precisely because under the Marcos administration, many Filipinos right now are asking what is really the flagship infrastructure project of the current administration, because thus far we don't see any kind of achievement in the last 2 and already 3 years of his administration. Rather, we can see a lot of— how do you call that— corruption in, in this department. Like, for example, flood control project, which is amounting to billions and even to a point of trillion pesos. But when we have calamities, we are The whole Manila and even parts of the Philippines are underwater. So where are those flood control projects? So that is now the contention. Why would you put too much money on one department and in the constitution it's supposed to be education? So these are part of the whole controversy. Um, when you talk about the national budget, this is just one. This is the other— this is 50%. The other most critical at the moment, David, is the issue of the bicameral report. In the bicameral report, as we know, in Congress, since they are the one who is— who has the power of the purse, usually we have this budget deliberation from both houses, the Senate and the lower house. All the departments, all the departments of government, all the entities, you need to present your budget and you will— it will be deliberated in Congress. So you have to defend, and some of the agency has to be reduced, and it's a long process and it's a very stringent process supposedly. Now, if the two houses will have different— and they will come up with different numbers in terms of the budget of all the departments, usually you call for a bicameral committee. So the bicameral committee members will be the one deliberating and reconciling so that you will have one, one paper, one legal, one legislative document, and you call it the bicameral report. However, it was discovered that the bicameral report, which is the basis or the precursor to the general appropriation bill, or which will be signed by the president. It becomes a— it becomes a law. It's actually the national budget of your country. Yeah, it was discovered that there were blanks, there were blanks, and there were missing details. And most of the details come from what they call Department of Agriculture budget and some kind of the— an appropriated, um, a budget, appropriated, meaning there's not specific things but there are amounts in there. So there are around 28 blanks in 13 pages of the whole bicameral report. So the, the controversy is like this. So if, if the bicameral report is the basis for the GA, for the GA or the General Appropriations Act, so how come that you have— you were able to complete the GA when the bicam has missing details. And when you talk about missing details, these are amounts of money. And according to Congressman Isidro Ungab, who, who actually was the one who exposed this to the public, and he uploaded the copies of the bicameral report in— by photo with blanks in media. And it was also captured in a report of UNTV, um, which in a matter of an which right now they took it down, but a blogger, a blogger, and who's doing a YouTube platform were able to capture and he, he kind of re-uploaded it. So everything is there. And also Senator Bato, Senator Imee Marcos actually said that yes, there were blanks in the bicameral report. Now the controversy is how come that the members of the bicameral committee signed a bicameral report which is the basis of the General Appropriations Act slash the 2025 national budget, if there were blanks? So that's one question. The other question is, what is the basis of coming up with the GAA on those 28 blanks that is filled up in the GAA? So you have the field blanks. Who filled the blanks? Who was the one who filled the blanks when there was no details in the bicameral report? On 28 blanks. So that— those are the controversies right now. And, and, and of course, the, the whole Philippines is, is some kind of angry or some kind of confused. And also, um, there is a deception going on precisely because the president was interviewed and he said— Marcos Jr. said that, that as far as he is concerned, the, the GA-A or the GAA 2025 is complete with details and when he signed it. But the thing here is like this, it's not the GA that is under question, it's the bicameral report which is the basis of the GA. So who filled in the blanks? So that is the question at the moment. And also why this committee members signed it. The House Speaker signed it, Martin Romualdez. The Senate President signed also the bicameral report. So Why did you allow it? Why did you sign? And then the Senate president— I, I, hopefully I'm not mistaken quoting him but rephrasing him— saying that he signed a complete BICOM report, but the evidence shows that it is not complete because there were blanks and missing details. So who is lying? Is it the one who exposed this, which is Congressman Ungab, or those people who are actually trying to be defensive given that there is an exposé of this. But take note, Congressman Ungab, he has a proof, and that proof with the blanks was exposed already in social media. And this was supported by a UNTV report which was re-uploaded by a blogger and also by other members of the BICAM committee who did not sign the BICAM report, and, uh, Mimi Marcos and Bato Della Rosa was saying, yes, it's true. So this is now the whole controversy, and this is an issue, David, of transparency and accountability. And take note, this is our national budget for this year. So the problem here is, if there is this kind of controversy, the question is, who filled the blanks and why did you sign it? Those people who signed the bicameral— the senators and congressmen who signed the BICAM report. And what is the issue here? This is an issue of potential corruption of— in the 20— potential corruption with the 2025 national budget. That is not anymore something— the, the thing here is like this: it is institutionalized corruption already. It's a legalized corruption because it is in the budget. Before, when you say corruption, these are illegal practices, you know that this is illegal. But now it's easy for them to justify it when it happens. Why? Because it's legalized and institutionalized already. So this is, this is really a sad story that is happening in my country, and this is because of the greed of so many politicians that we have, including those in the House and even in the Senate. And now, that is so funny. Now, you know what, David? Just today, there was a— the, the executive secretary of Marcos Jr., Bersamin, Lucas Bersamin, was saying that as far as the bicameral report, the executive level, the president and the executive branch, has nothing to do with it. We, we have nothing to do. So he is now like a Pontius Pilate trying to wash his hands and saying that, oh, the executive level has nothing to do with it. You point to the legislative branch because that They're the ones responsible for it. But take note, the BICOM report has no page, has blanks. The bill, the GAAA, has all the details. Then the thing here, why is it that the president was not able to compare the two? Yeah, you as a president, you're supposed to look at all the reports in your hands before you even sign, sign anything, a very important legislative measure, which is the national budget. So now they're saying, the executive branch, that, oh, we don't have anything, we're not part of the BICOM, so it's not—

it's a lie. Yeah, it's a lie. As an outsider looking in, and again, I am not judging because we do have the same problems here, it's just it is far worse in Philippines. To me, became clear that some politicians are involved in this corruption. In other words, they are on the take. That's the only way I look at it. Shame on those politicians because they're supposed to serve the average Filipino person. Yes, that's to me where the big problem is. I want you, Anna, please, if you explain one word briefly, bicameral, just for my community to understand, uh, what is bicameral. You've been repeating that term bicameral, just for them to understand, for those who do not know.

Yeah, that's, that's just for clarification. When you say bicameral, in— I think in your system also in the United States is you have two, two houses of Congress, right? You have the Senate and you have the House of Representatives. In our side in the Philippines, we have also two. So we're bicameral system. We have the House of Representatives and we have the Senate. So when you say bicameral, it's actually the It's actually a fusion of two and become one, especially on issues that, you know, like a bill that they have disparity in both houses, they have to reconcile it. So they kind of create a committee, the bicameral committee, represented by House of Representatives members and also the senators to come together, discuss that specific legislation, not only of the— not only of the budget, but any specific legislation they will discuss and unify it and reconcile and come up with one document. And that's what you call enrolled bill that will be presented to the president, and the president will review, and when the president is okay, he will sign. It becomes a law. And the General Appropriations Act, once signed by the president, it's a law. It's a legislative measure. But on our side, the GAAA is the most important law, I think, in the field, in the whole country, um, as far as legislative measure is concerned, precisely because it is the national budget of the country. And now we're talking about the 2025 national budget, which is full of controversy, discrepancy. And the only mechanism by which this issue will be settled and will be clarified is for the third branch of government to take kick in. I think this is my perspective.

Which one? Which one?

And that's the Supreme Court.

This is— which means the judiciary will have to intervene. Now, now here is the question, Anna, which may— where my concern is: if the judiciary gets involved, will it be politicized?

That is a good question too, because you know everything's politicized in my country. And you take note, and one thing that you have to remember, the executive— how do you go— I'm not saying that the justices will, on this particular issue, will be politicized, but what I'm saying is the reality in my country. Every government institution, especially when you talk— if it's, it's— you're talking about the president, and the president, even if you have this, uh, theoretically speaking, um, equal branches of government, and, you know, and the co-independent branches of government, in real politics it's not true. The president would always have a hand on these different branches of government. Why? Precisely because in our side, even the appointment of judges, the president appoints. It's not, of course, like a body that will, you know, will appoint— no, no— decide that the final approval of who will be the justices in the Supreme in court or even in the lower courts is in the hands of the president. So the president's really powerful. On the other hand, in the legislative branch, it's actually the allies of the president right now in both houses. So if you look at the national budget at the moment, you have, um, the— it's actually the crisis, um, in terms of transparency and accountability is now pointed, no, to the executive and the legislative because the bicameral is actually from the legislative. The signing of the document, it's on the executive level, which is the president. And the question, why did you sign something which is in the bicameral, has a lot of blanks? Why would you do that? You're supposed to review all the documents before you sign a national budget or a GA. But that is a big question at the moment. So on my side, what I'm saying is, so this is now a critical issue. In many ways, for me, the way I see it, the executive and the legislative is com— are compromised to a greater extent. Now there is a remedy to that, and that's the Supreme Court, which is the judiciary. And I really hope if in any case someone— and I heard just now this evening that Congress— Congressman Ungab will file a petition in the Supreme Court to question the legality and the authenticity and the credibility and the integrity of the 2020 2025 national budget, or the GA-2025, in Supreme Court. But the question is very good, David, on your side. You're saying, what if those members of the Supreme Court will also be politicized? Precisely because— why? One thing though that you have to take note, the executive secretary was a former chief of the Supreme Court, you see. Uh, so there is this, and there is the possibility of all of this, you know, politization and, you know, a compromise. You can— you may say like potential that the members of the Supreme Court could be compromised in that way. But of course, these are potential. I'm not saying that it happens, it will happen, but what I'm saying, this is the reality really in real politic of the situation of the country under this current administration.

Well, this, Anna, leads me to another basic question regarding this, you know, prior to, uh, uh, what's his name, Marcos signing— President Ferdinand Marcos, you give the proper title because he is president. So, uh, prior to him signing this, was there a debate, like an open debate, public, for the Filipino people, the average person to know? I know average is like in the US, average citizens are clueless on what's going on with Congress. But was there an open debate that is publicly broadcasted for all the Filipino people to at least hear or see what's going on? Was there an open debate?

Sadly, sadly, it's a sad reality in my country. None. It wasn't, especially none with all of this controversy surrounding the 2025 national budget, the, the controversy of the bicameral report with so many blanks and so many, um, missing details, and with questionable GAA of 2025. There was no debate. Even the sad part is like this, David, this was exposed by Congressman Oualaalou together with the former President Duterte in one media platform. But these are social— this is social media platform. That was nighttime. So we were expecting that the next day the mainstream media will cover the exposé of Congress— Congressman Oualaalou and even of former President Duterte, but there was none. I'm not kidding, there was not even a substantial, a small piece of news with substantial, um, um, content of the ex— of the exposé of the 2025 national budget. There was none. The only thing that they covered is the statement coming from the administration, statement of Bersamin, the statement of President Marcos. You know who, who actually, um, put this out in the public, in social media, because that's the only way? It's us. It's us, really ordinary Filipinos, many bloggers, political bloggers, commentators who can write their own pieces, publish in newspaper, but these are columns, this is not news. So these are the people who are actually exposing this issue in public. There was no debate as to the mainstream media talking about this, deepening the issue for Filipinos to understand because, you know, In the Philippines, you still need the mainstream media in many ways to educate the Filipino people when you talk about critical issues of the country. But this is being downplayed by the mainstream media, both TV, radio, and even, and even, um, newspapers. It was just good that someone like me who has— who writes for Manila Times, who actually can write and publish, but I'm limited too. Because I'm only publishing my column once a week, and there's a lot of details that you need to explain and write for people to understand that. Like, for example, it's not only the BICAM report that is problematic, even the allocation and appropriation to different departments are very problematic. There is an appropriated, um, section of the 2025 budget which it doesn't have anything. There's no details in it, but it has a budget. And why is it that you have a big budget for DPWH and the education is, is smaller? Actually, if you really scrutinize it, and why do you have a zero budget for PhilHealth? So, and also reduction in the budget of the university. So many, many issues. So, but this is not discussed in mainstream media. No, nothing. Well, I want a story.

Yeah, I want the Filipino people who are watching this there is a platform right here where the likes of Professor Anna Malindog can come in and explain in a simple language to the average Filipino people.

Yes.

So you have a platform here, guys. Should you be interested, subscribe to the channel and you will— I'll be happy to have Anna whenever her schedule permits. If she can be here on, on every 2 weeks, 3 weeks, she's busy But the platform is always here for you, Professor Anna, whenever you feel like it.

So thank you so much, David.

Of course. Well, I wanted, I wanted the Filipino people to hear the truth. To me, that's what this channel is all about.

This is important. These are critical issues. Imagine, David, this is the 2025 national budget that is surrounded by controversy. An issue of discrepancy, issue of transparency and accountability, issue of accountability of those who signed the BICAM report and even the accountability on the part of the president, why did you not scrutinize the reports, both sides, like the GA and also the BICAM? Because the BICAM is also— the bicameral report is the basis why you have the national budget. If you— where would you invent the figures that you fill in in that GA if you don't look at the BICAM? Because the BICAM is the summary of all the deliberation, all the discussions in the plenary and even in committee levels during the budget hearings. There's such a thing as budget hearing. There is one step— every step of the way, every step of the way was covered by Congress in both houses. They have the deliberation, every department, even the— even, you know, everything was deliberated. All the smallest entity in government presented and presented their budget, and it was deliberated in both houses. No, you came with— you went through all this and then you have the reports coming from two houses, you reconcile both, and that's the product of the whole budget process. And why would it happen that there are blanks and then you come up with a GAA that is complete? So what— where, you know, how come? The basic question: where did you get the figures that completes the GAA when you have 28 blanks in the And that's even one of the biggest issues. But the others that I explained earlier are also constitutional issues, like the issue of DepEd, the issue of field health. These are very controversial issues as well that has something to do with— many people are saying that there is a violation of the Constitution with reference to the 2025 National Budget. And these are not discussed, David, in mainstream media. The Filipino people, it seems that they want the Filipino people not to know what's going on. But take note, who will be at the disadvantage if you have this kind of national budget that is being perceived to be a corrupt one, that would be a potential for institutionalized and legalized corruption? Who will be disadvantaged? Not the elites, not the oligarchs in my country, definitely not the politicians, but the ordinary Filipinos. And the most affected would be the people on the ground. These are the poor people. And we have a lot of poor people in my country. I'm not kidding. We have a middle class, but the base of my country, when you talk about population, still are the less fortunate, or what you call the poor people, really.

So, well, we are not— we're not gonna stop from telling the truth. So that's, that's to me how it is. So to those who just do not know or just join us, whatever, I am having my conversation with Professor Anna Malandag, and we're talking about the— what's going on in the corruption budget of 2025 in the Philippines. So please make sure to subscribe to the channel, and here is the link, and I'm posting it for you on the description. And to all my Filipino people, pay close attention to what the likes of Professor Anna Malandag is saying, because that's very important. Uh, before I'll move on to the next, uh, within the same context, uh, I just want to share this with you, uh, Professor Anna, and with the community. I, I get a, a, a comment requesting that if I can interview the former president Rodrigo Duterte. Yeah, I would be happy to if he's willing to come on the channel. I know the vice president Sara Duterte is busy right now dealing with this nonsense of what they're trying to do to her politically. That's basically political assassination. That's the assassination of character. That is, that's, that's what they are trying to do, which is not right for the country. I'm not defending her, by the way, guys. I, I don't know her that well. I know of her as far as her position. I've always— and I asked my previous guest last time, uh, uh, Malo, about whether— and I asked the question, I'll ask you too, uh, Anna, why that, if you allow me. So do you think, in your opinion, will Sara Duterte be a far better president than Marcos Jr.?

I think so.

In your honest opinion, and why?

Goodness opinion, yes. First and foremost, she's a lawyer. She finished a course, she graduated from college, and she took another, you know, took it further by taking law, and she's a lawyer. I think she has also solid experience when you talk about politics, but and being a mayor for 3 years, and she was doing a good, great job actually during her time as mayor. She was a vice mayor, mayor, and of Davao City before she became vice president. And all throughout her career as a politician, I never heard of her being accused of corruption until now, that they want her to be eliminated in the, in the, in how they call, in the political landscape of the Philippine, Philippine politics. Why? Because if Sara is impeached there would be a possibility that she will be disqualified from running any elected position in government or being in government at all. That's one of the consequences. So that's why they want to eliminate her, because if she run— let us say there would be 2028 presidential election— if she run, definitely she has the highest, um, in terms of winnability, she has the— she has that winnability that no one thus far at the moment can fair. So if she runs for 2028, she might win. The potential of her winning— I'm not saying she will win because it's still to happen— but the potential of winning the election, the presidency in 2020, is so high that no one can actually question that. Even until now, she's still among the elected officials in the country. When you talk about trust rating, when you talk about, um, popularity, she's still number one. She's way ahead of Marcos Jr. In terms of vote, last 2022 election of May, she has the highest vote, 32 million, higher than President Marcos. So if you really look at this, um, I never heard of any corruption. I'm— maybe I'm mistaken, but thus far, I'm, I'm, I'm within the same age with Sara. Sara is around 46, I'm like around 45 or 46. We're the same age, I think. I'm not sure, but I think we're in the same age, the same generation. Thus far, I never heard of anything Sara is accused when you talk about corruption, when she was a mayor, vice mayor. However, at this time they're trying to paint and destroy her character as a politician, as a person, precisely because they're so afraid that in 2028 election, if she runs for presidency, she will win landslide. Yeah. So the only way for that not to happen is to impeach her, because one of the consequences of the impeachment, the potential consequences, is she will be disqualified from running any position. Then she cannot end run for president, vice president, whatsoever, even mayor, I think. So that's a potential, a potential, um, effect of the impeached— an impeached government official like a vice president or a president for that matter. So you see, yeah, it's very obvious.

Oh, then I'm gonna ask the community, uh, guys, uh, beside my Filipino viewers, for you, if you are, you are from outside Philippines and so forth, I'm gonna ask you guys question and please answer in the chat box Yes or no? Do you believe, in your opinion, based on what you know, will Sara Duterte, the current vice president, be an adequate, a competent, and a good president for the Philippines? Yes or no? And this is not about judgment, guys. It's just to engage you in the conversation. No more, no less. So feel free to, and to put your answer in the chat box, please. Should Vice President Sara Duterte run for president, and will she be a competent president?

And one thing though that I want to qualify, no, I'm not saying this because I'm a friend of Sara or something. I'm not a personal friend. I don't know her personally, to be very frank. I know her from her political career as a politician. I don't even consider, to be very frank with you, um, David, Sara as a politician. She's not, she's not acting like a politician. She's a real person, you know.

I know she would be good if a good person like that, honest. Yeah, and honest for the average person, average Filipino. I always worry for me personally, and I speak for myself here, I always worry for the average person, be it here in the US, be it in Philippines, be it in Thailand, be it in South Africa, doesn't matter. It's that average person. And again, my desire for that is because I traveled around the world a lot when I was in Washington, and I used to deal with the average people, not the higher up in the government, but the average citizens. And I saw how kind and nice and wonderful human beings are. They deserve that the government, whatever part of the world they are in, that the government works for them. What I'm seeing going on in the Philippines is the reverse. Yes, that is where my concern and why I make it now my mission to be addressing Filipino issues so the Filipino people can know and hear the truth. And thank you, uh, Professor Anna, for really carving out time to come here and share this with the majority. I just want to let you know here on the chat box, everybody is saying yes. To the question.

Um, and one thing also, you know what I like? It's not that I like personally because we are not really personally, um, friends. No, I mean, I think I know— I know her, she knows me in, in some kind because we're both public figures in, in our country. But I think one thing that I like about, about her, she is not elite. She's not part of the elite. It's very important for me for, for a leader not to be part of the elite. I'm not— I don't have anything against the elites. But for me, in my country, a leader should be someone who really understands the plight of the people, who understands how it is to be poor and how it is to struggle in life, you know. And so, because this— that's the only way you will have that empathy with the common people. So that's why— that's one factor that, as far as I'm concerned, I like about Sara and even the former president. They are not part of the elites. They are ordinary Filipinos. It just so happened that they ran for office and they started their political career in Davao City. Because even the former president David Oualaalou, I don't think he had national position aside from being a congressman once, I think, in his political career. Most of his career was really mayor and vice mayor of Davao City. So he is really like in touch with on the ground. He has a ground reality. Uh, he can, he can see the ground reality. That's why when he creates policy, it's based on— it's really grounded, you know, it's grounded, grounded policy. So for me, this is important. Yeah, as a person.

Well, I just want to show on the screen here some few quick here, quick answers from, like, for example, uh, Mamela Elvy. She said, we Filipinos love and like Sara Duterte. Uh, and if there is another one that says no, I'll show it, but majority saying yes. It's just— and again, not all these, uh, responders are from Philippines. Here's from Jan. Yes, Sara Duterte is the best. You know, some, some of my viewers, they know, they've been around long enough with me to understand how things are. So majority saying here yes, just to guys let you know. And speaking of the former president, Duterte, which, you know, I'll— as I said, I worked in Washington and you kind of have access to many, many things. The, the, the, the, the challenge the West had with Duterte, the father, he didn't fit the profile of the Western style, you know what I mean?

Yeah, yeah, I understand.

His language was the average Filipino person.

That's correct.

We didn't like that in the West. We didn't like it. This is why it was a conversation. I was aware of it between the president and the CIA at that time. Because why? We were trying to pressure him for tensions with China, and he was like, you guys are— you are crazy. Me fighting China? What are you talking about? So we didn't like the fact that he was down to earth. He was not that, you know, the likes of the— like a comedian, Zelensky with Marcos. One corrupt, yeah, another corrupted. So simple as that. And here is the concern that I had with this one here. The reason I'm showing you guys this, this picture, it's for a reason. Because during this visit of these two knuckleheads to Philippines, they gave the money— the Filipino government— $500 million. Where did it go?

Yeah, that's a question.

Yeah, so, and this is why I made it my mission now to be addressing those kind of issues of the Philippines. Let's move on to one other question pertaining to all this, uh, Professor Anna, and this one has to do with the idea of if no debate was, uh, was within the, the government. I'm trying to my, uh, to my, uh, what I had the question here. So regarding, uh, the— they said no debate was made openly and publicly for the Filipino people to know. So is this means, in your opinion, that they were high-ranking of officials inside the government who were aiding and facilitating this outcome in support of Marcos?

Well, it's very obvious if you look at the BICAM report, who were actually members of the bicameral committee. Those who signed was actually aiding whatever kind of plans of the current administration. When you talk about all of these things, maybe in terms of corruption. Because if you, you know, the thing here is if you did not sign it, precisely, it means that you are not in agreement to whatever kind of possible or potential corruption that could be committed and be run using the 2025 national budget. I mean, in terms of, with reference to the buy count, there were senators who did not sign it. One of that is the sister of the president, Imee Marcos. The other one is Senator De La Rosa. Bato de la Rosa. I think those are the two prominent who actually came out in public saying that we did not sign it, the bicam. Now the question is, who signed it? Who among these congressmen and senators or members of the bicameral committee signed? So if they signed, even if there were blanks, what does it mean? They are complicit to do whatever kind of controversy or discrepancy that is Now the issue at hand, in a way you're aiding any kind of potential corruption that may take place using the 2025 national budget. So these are the people, and they're, they're in, in social media, David. All of this, the, the, the, the document that you can see, the signature, and these are authentic signature, of course, authentic document, were already uploaded in, in the, in social media, in Facebook and Twitter, but and it's circulating among the Filipino public. That is already there. So we know already who denies. And the Senate President of the Philippines denied that there were no blanks. They— he said, I did not see any blanks when I signed the, the BICOM report. I said, oh, are you blind or did you did not review it? Yeah, because yeah, I mean, how come that you, you're saying that there were no blanks but that some of the members of the BICAM who did not sign actually said yes, there were blanks.

And the one who said that was Martin Gomez?

Um, no, um, the, the Senate president of the, of, of the Philippines right now, of the Senate of the Philippines right now, is, um, Escudero. Um, yeah.

Now, who is, who is the cousin? Who is the cousin?

This is the cousin, of course. He signed.

This guy, right?

Yeah, this guy.

Yeah, I want to make sure I'm, I'm saying the right thing here.

So now, yeah, the most controversial guy thus far in the history of the Philippines when you talk about alleged corruption in government.

Wow, wow. And there are no laws that will prevent this, uh, nepotism? There are no laws that prevents somebody like that to just push the agenda without debate, without anything?

Uh, there are laws in my country, David. Actually, there are a lot of laws when you talk about corruption in my country. I can mention a few of them, and I can even mention some of the institutions that actually deals with corruption. Um, when you talk about government officials and public officials, I mean elected officials, one of that we have the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. It's Republic Act number 3019. It's usually, um, this is, um, the law applies to, um, corrupt, uh, it pertains to corrupt practices by public officials such as committing nepotism, engaging in undue advantage. There's also an— there are also Republic Act Number 6713, that is the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public Officials and Employees. This basically deals with corruption practices. And you have the Plunder Law. The Plunder Law, it means accumulation of ill-gotten wealth of public officials. So that's the ceiling is around 50 million pesos. My God, the corruption cases in my country with all of these corrupt politicians, not only 50 million pesos, we, we even more. Because even the Hermès bag, you know, the Hermès or Hermès, how do you pronounce it, it's not only 50 million pesos, it's millions and millions, almost a billion in— because it's in dollars, right? So there are a lot of politicians, women politicians, who are acquiring this, um, kind of very expensive bags that, you know. So these are, these are the laws in my country. And also you have different institutions that deals with corruption. We have the Office of the Ombudsman, we have the Sandiganbayan, the Commission on Audit, and Presidential Anti-Corruption Commission, which handles corruption on the executive level. We have all the laws, David, we have all the institutions that actually deals with corruption cases of different levels with different officials in government, including public officials. However, the problem is like this, David. How would you— how this— the problem here really is the implementation of it and the politicization of the law. Why? Because if the implementer of the law— because in the branches of government, it's the legislative branch that craft the laws and, you know, and pass the laws. But who implements the laws? It's the executive level. And who interprets the law is the judiciary. Now, if the implementer of the law is being accused of corruption as well, so that is a huge problem in the country right now. Because if the executive level is also being alleged to be corrupt, then who implements these laws? And this Sandiganbayan Commission on Audit, Presidential Anti-Corruption Commission, these are all executive level. These are under the executive. The executive level has a hand, though the judiciary to a certain extent can intervene, but these are basically— especially the Presidential Anti-Corruption Commission is in the executive level. So now, how would you implement the laws when, you know, the implementer himself, uh, actually, I mean, is already compromised because, um, being accused and even alleged to be corrupt as well? So that is a big question at the moment. And so if you really look at the country, you have, um, what you call, um, there is this, um, problem that is— that has something to do with weak enforcement, political interference, and also culture of impunity. The culture of impunity, David, is so huge and so magnified in my country that, you know, corrupt politicians are not even ashamed of what they're doing. And even, you know, they're just flaunting it. They're flaunting their kind of— this kind of corrupt practices, and even their kind of lifestyle that you don't understand where they— where do they get the money to buy this kind of condominiums, assets in the United States, having so many, um, jewelries and all of these luxury items. When in fact, if you will scrutinize the salary of a co— of a member of the House of of representative. It's not that much, it's really not. So where do you get those money that you can buy, you know, like women politicians, they can buy so expensive, um, bags and luxury bags that actually for me I think only the Queen and King of Brunei, I think the Princess of Brunei can afford this, or, or let's say the, the queen, uh, the princesses of, of, of, of the royalty in London. Could afford because they're really like, they have the money, you know, personal. But I don't think ordinary politician will be able to afford if they don't engage in corruption. But take a look in my country, I'm not kidding, David. These politicians, they can just travel anywhere, they can buy luxury clothes and luxury items that you will be amazed. Where did you get the money when your salary— I mean, a pri— uh, uh, uh, uh, A person like me, if I work in the private sector, I can earn much because I'm in the private sector. You have more salary, you're bigger salary. In the government, you have lower salary. That's, that's really the case. Now, if you earn much because you're a private, um, you're a private employee, you're in, in, uh, in a company that you earn a lot, then you will question even you, you cannot buy these items, but them, they can buy it many, many, many times over. You will, you will think, why is it that they can buy when in fact my salary is higher than them? You know what I mean? So where do they get them?

Really?

And the houses are mansions. I'm not kidding, David. Their houses are mansions.

So these are, they're gonna check out, Anna. They are not gonna take anything with them.

So that's, yeah, that's also the case.

Yeah, they can, they can accumulate all the wealth they want. When the final day comes in, they're gonna check out and go out as they came in with nothing.

So that is also—

if it were up to me, I wouldn't know what the punishment will be. My community knows where I stand on this. This, by the way, reminds me of what, uh, President Xi said once, and I'm paraphrasing here. He said that if you want to be rich, don't work in the government.

That's really true, because in the government you're supposed to be a public servant, David, right? You are a public servant, and I mean, you are not poor, but at least you are the average or moderate. You serve the public because that is your chosen path. It's a choice. You're not forced to work in government. But my God, so many— my, my feeling, David, is in the current situation of my country It seems that the business— it's supposed to be business, like, you know, you have a company and all of this, but the business in my country is politics. And many wants to be involved, many wants to be a politician precisely because they earn a lot of money from politics. That's a sad reality of my country, especially under this current government. This is worse ever.

Well, we have the same problems here, so we are as corrupted as we can get, and I don't shy away from saying it and exposing whatever needs to be said. I am hoping one day to visit Philippines and go and see with my own eyes in Manila and so forth. So, and this, just to conclude all this, Anna, we— now I'm getting to the point of saying maybe when, when Marcos Jr. was running and, and won the elections, I had high hopes that he's not gonna pursue the same path like his father. And again, I am not pointing fingers, I am providing the facts. So the facts that we all know about Imelda Marcos, you all know. I don't know if you guys know what was she famous for. Imelda was famous for this, right? Massive amount of shoes. What for? And to me, that's not a laughing matter. It's because the hopes were that Marcos Jr. is gonna sort of, uh, save the family name by reversing, by reversing the trends of corruption. I was wrong. I was hoping he will do good for his own country, but turns out to be no. He's even making it worse.

Yes, that's, that's also my, my, um, that's actually the missing point. I mean, the, the Marcoses really, and the Romualdeses, missed the point why they were given a chance by the Filipino people. They were given a chance precisely because we thought that they will rectify, they will rectify the mistakes of, of his father. I'm not saying that everything that Marcos Sr. have done to my country are all wrong. There were also things. However, they were known really for being corrupt. And I mean, Marcos Senior was really known for corruption, and it's all over the world. It's a global issue. I mean, I think the whole world knows this thing. However, our perception at that time during the 2022 election was, okay, we will give you the chance to rectify mistakes and try to correct the impression of the Filipino people and of the world that you are a corrupt— you're a family that is, you know, associated with the word corruption. And you will make your name— you will clean your name and, you know, make the Filipino people happy. And also the Philippines, you know, to run the country in a good way that we will come— we'll go to that path of, or trajectory of progress, that corruption will not be, um, will not be associated anymore with the word Marcos or the surname I was— even I, I'll be honest, I was thinking that way. That's why I supported him. Actually, I voted for him. I don't deny that. Yeah, I'm also one of that because Sara partnered with him. So, and I like the, the lead, the brand of leadership of, of the Duterte. It's work, work, work, do, do, do things. That's their brand of leadership. And so, and, and I was hoping that, you know, things will not be like this. But my God, what happened is even— it's even worse than the time of his father, to be very frank. His father was at least able to— his father was able to, to put up certain legacies. When you talk about, um, his reign in 20 years, there was bad, bad things, but at least there were also good things. We have a lot of infrastructure projects that even until now you can see it in the Philippines. There were roads and bridges, and even in my province you still have the San Juanico Bridge, which is a legacy of Ferdinand, of the father. But here at this time, you don't have achievements. In the last 3 years, there was no achievements, concrete achievement, really nothing, a concrete project that he can be proud of as a president. Everything in the last 3 years is all covered and surrounded by controversy of many, many things. Foreign policy that is defective, um, rising prices of goods. You have the corruption massively. Everything is just bad that I don't even— what, what did you do in the last 3 years as president? Is— you're supposed to have at least one, one thing. I, I'm even thinking at the moment, there— is there one thing that he achieved as the president of the country and his administration in the last 3 years? I cannot think of anything, David, to be very frank with you. I'm sorry to the supporters of the Marcoses, but you, you need to encourage your, your, your, uh, the president, if you support him even until this time, to at least have an achievement before his, his term ends, if it will, or it will end, because I'm not sure if he will be continuing after then. After 2028, because, you know, no way. Change the concept.

Yeah, yeah. Or even, or even to do the right thing, step down, step down for the sake of the country. This is, I believe, I believe, and, and correct me if I'm wrong, I believe now Philippines is at a conjuncture, uh, it's at a, you know, conjecture points where they're gonna have to decide, is it the will of the people to make it loud and clear to the president, since he has not sort of performed to the best that serves the Filipino people, to step down and let someone else take over before things get— because it's getting in the direction where I'm seeing it, you know. Yeah, to look over the horizon. Yeah, I am very concerned as to to what lies ahead for Philippines. Yeah, it would be right of him to do the right thing and step down.

I think so. It's a service to the country. And it's— I, I think he's not stupid not to see what's going on in the country. I think he can see it. It's just that I think this, this attitude of trying to hold on to power, to preserve your family, to preserve everything that you do, and you're afraid to be an ordinary person is there. And I think it's also about assets and all of these things. And you know what I'm saying, you know what I'm talking about. So that is the thing. But if he really wants to do a service, an ultimate sacrifice, an ultimate service for the country, then the best thing to do with the 3 years full of controversy, full of corruption issues, and no nothing achievement at all, is to step down. It's the graceful exit. And I think all Filipinos including me, I will, I will see him in a different light. I will tell him, oh, that's a hero in, in that sense, because he knows that he's not effective and he stepped down. Yeah, that is actually, uh, that for me, you have so many heroes in this world who, who runs revolution and all this, but for me, if he will do that, I will call him, okay, you saved the country from going down the drain, and it's already in the process of going down the drain. So in a way, you you really will do a service, a ultimate service for the country if you step down based on objective reality that his administration really have not achieved anything and only controversy after controversy, embarrassment after embarrassment in the global community, in the international community, almost in every sector, almost in every section of policymaking, of governance. I'm not kidding, David. So if I am him Yeah, I will just, you know, okay, I think it's time for me to step down and let someone run it that he, he will probably think also capable of running the whole country. And you watch from afar that your country is going— it's reversing the trajectory from going down the drain and going up. I think that's your legacy. For me, the way I see it is like that, really. But of course, that is something that is a wishful thinking, to be frank with you, David. I don't think, I don't think President Marcos will have that decision precisely because there are a lot of people around him who wants him to be up there because they benefit a lot from him being up there. It's not actually him, it's the other people around him who is using him for their own advantage as well. And one of that is his cousin, actually.

Yeah, this guy, I read— I am not judging here, but I read some things about this guy. It's, uh, I, I, I know where I can find the information. So it's, uh, yeah, no, there's a lot of information in the United States.

He's actually facing a case in the United States.

Oh yes, oh yes, oh yeah. That's— I didn't— because I didn't want to come across like I'm, I'm pointing fingers at him, whatever. I read enough and I found out what I I need to find out. I still have my people, so I can reach out to— so, but here's the thing about Marcos quickly here, uh, before I'll give you the last word, before I let you go, because it's too late for you, and I am very grateful that you are, uh, you decide to give us your time here. So, uh, it's also serving the master. And the reason I'm saying this, maybe one day you and I will, will, will get on online here and, and do another conversation regarding foreign policy. It's because of what lies ahead with now Marco Rubio, the new secretary. Narco, we call him in the US now, Narco Rubio, because of, uh, it's the truth. If you only know also his background and with some of the involvements in the family with the drug trafficking and so forth. Uh, it's because of the foreign policy. Now it's going to be towards that part of the world. And that's something also of great concern to me. This is what I'm saying, it will make more sense if Marcos Jr. stepped down now before it's too late. So, but again, I'll give you the last word, Anna, regarding what do you see this issue of the corruption in this budget be dealt with or resolved or investigated? What's in— what's going to be for the average Filipino You have the last word.

Yeah, thank you so much, David, for giving me the last, um, the last minute of this program and this episode. I think, um, um, the national budget is important. It's the national budget. It means everything, um, in terms of how the whole government is run, in terms of financing for the 2025, is based on that budget. And now the budget is surrounded with a lot of controversy from Starting from the BICAM report that has so many blanks and you have a GAA that is complete, and where's the basis of those things, especially with the 28 blanks out of the 13 pages of the BICAM? So that's one. The other one is the issue of field health with no budget, education with— the budget is also lower in substance. So education supposedly is a priority because it's— we're trying to develop human capital in the Philippines. And all other issues. So I think the whole Philippines, especially ordinary Filipinos, should know this issue because whatever happens to that budget, if it will be rectified in many ways or it will be used without rectification, or this controversy will not be resolved and will just proceed, at the end of the day, the one who will be affected are ordinary Filipinos who will be at a disadvantage precisely because In terms of corruption, it's already institutionalized and legalized within the 2025 National Budget in terms of potential. I'm not saying it's happening now because we're only in January, but usually January, the first quarter, it already will be implemented in the National Budget. So in that sense, ordinary Filipinos will be affected health-wise, basic services, welfare, including education.. And usually we supposedly, we should have a free education, but if you don't have enough budget for free education— and even, by the way, David, in the educational system, um, supposedly, um, higher education like tertiary, um, um, like college, you know, in the university, um, supposedly in, in, in state university and, and, and colleges, um We supposedly no fee anymore, no tuition fee. It's supposed to be free, but they also reduce the budget for that. They reduce it substantially. So now there's a problem for people, for students who are taking college and, and, and studies in, in, in state university and colleges, because, um, the problem is how are you going to provide free education to these people when you don't have enough budget? Because they reduce it in the 2020 2025 national budget, which is supposedly a priority. So, you know, the effect will be on ordinary people, really. So I hope the Filipinos will be aware of these things, try to get educated, because anything that has something to do with the budget has something to do with you and your life as a Filipino daily. On the other hand, with regard to the controversy, which is an issue of transparency, accountability, and due diligence, actually, on the of the— of those who signed the BICAM report, and this is from the House of Representatives and the Senate. I hope that someone will challenge the 2025 General Appropriations Act in the Supreme Court and will make a petition. And I really hope as well that when there is a petition, the Supreme Court justices will be objective and will really look at the issue purely from an objective perspective and will not be influenced by any politician for that matter. So, and they would have the conscience, no, that this is a national budget that we're talking about, and at the end of the day, it's every Filipino's concern. So I hope that will happen. And I have one last message to my fellow Filipinos. You know what, Guys, it's like this. If good people— I will rephrase this, but the message is clear, and this is also was said by Congressman Marco Letta in the 13th January, um, peace rally of the INC. But I will rephrase that for everyone to understand it clearly. If good people like us will just, will just do nothing, will just be quiet, then the evil ones, the bad ones, will triumph. Will be— will succeed in the kind of bad things that they're doing, not only for the country but for all Filipinos for that matter. Because everything that they do, especially this corrupt politician, affects everyone in the country. So for me, the good Filipinos, the concerned Filipinos, should do something. Ah, stand and fight for the country. It's not— you're not fighting for yourself, you're fighting for the country. And the next generation of Filipinos to come. This fight is not only for us at this time, it's our fight also for the next generation to come. Because if this time we will not be able to rectify the political situation, the bad thing that is happening to the country, our children and their children will inherit a Philippines that is worse than now. That's what I'm saying. So this fight is not just for us. Is for the next generation, and of course for the Philippines to have a better future, a more, a brighter future. Because right now, I'll be frank to everyone, I don't see it really. Sometimes I'm depressed, sometimes I'm frustrated that there's no hope for the country, that sometimes some of my friends who are foreigners— because I'm studying right now and I have contacts with different foreigners from different parts of the world— they're saying, why are you going back to your country when your country is going down to the drain? Why don't you just seek for a job that you can earn a lot of money and you have a peaceful life, you have a comfortable life? But I said, no, I'm a Filipino. It's my responsibility as a Filipino to be part of the discourse that is happening in my country, or else what will happen to my children? They cannot change their citizenship, and I don't want them to. So it's not only for us, it's for the next generation and our children. Who are still young at this time. So I hope the message is clear, and I hope that, you know, I, I really hope that my country will wake up, the Filipinos will wake up soon.

Let's, let's hope so.

Pretty soon, then late. Yeah.

Well, I, I look forward to our next conversation here. Probably you and I will address the foreign policy aspects. We'll talk about also the role of religion of the church in Philippines and how things navigate. So I look forward to those kind of more conversations. So on behalf of the entire community, I want to say thank you for your time. Thank you for sharing your knowledge, and may God bless you. So thank you so much. Please, Anna, don't leave. I'm going to just remove you from— I'm going to say bye to my community and I'll talk to you privately. So just wait for me here. Thank you. All right guys, I hope you enjoyed this, uh, uh, very, very interesting information from Professor Anna Malendog. So as I said before, this channel is about the truth. This channel is about helping you learn about where things are. So if you are interested in really learning more about it, make sure to subscribe and also support the channel. Here is the link for— I'm gonna put it for you because you— this way you will be able to click on it. And also, if you are in support of my upcoming Asia trip, so I, I plan on heading out over to Asia once again. So should you decide to support or the trip, here is the link for where you can donate some funding for that. So Other than that, I will see you at 12:15 for my upcoming livestream. I'm gonna share some information and break down for you the speech of Donald Trump to Davos in Switzerland yesterday. So as always, thank you for our wonderful community. To my Filipino viewers, welcome here. If this is your first time, please share this video with others in the Philippines so they can know about the truth. You are lucky to be here. Someone else might not be. So by, by— but by sharing the video, they will be able to know exactly what's going on. I look forward to seeing you guys at 12. As always, remember, geopolitics impact your daily life in more ways than one. Till next time, bye-bye.