When Accusation Replaces Evidence: Guanzon’s Rant and the Limits of Political Critique

Former election commissioner Rowena Guanzon sparked controversy after releasing a video commentary attacking President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., making sweeping claims about his health, decision-making, and fitness to lead.

Her message was emotional, blunt, and unfiltered—calling for Marcos to resign and painting him as unfit to serve as commander-in-chief amid economic hardship and rising unemployment.

But while frustration is understandable in a struggling economy, the Eagle pauses at a critical line:

When critique abandons evidence, it weakens its own cause.

Public officials—especially presidents—must be scrutinized. They must be questioned on policy failures, economic decisions, corruption, and leadership direction. These are fair, necessary, and democratic demands.

What crosses the line is when medical accusations are made without proof, when personal attacks replace institutional critique, and when outrage becomes performance rather than persuasion.

📖 “An honest answer is like a kiss on the lips.” — Proverbs 24:26

Guanzon’s strongest points were not the accusations—but the realities she cited:

• Millions unemployed during the holidays

• Persistent hunger

• A Congress accused of treating public funds like private cash

These are legitimate issues.
They deserve serious discussion.

But when criticism leans on speculation instead of facts, it hands ammunition to those it seeks to challenge—and distracts from the real failures that must be addressed.

The Agila’s view is clear:

Hold leaders accountable.
Demand results.
Expose corruption.

But truth must remain sharper than anger.

Because the goal is not to vent—it is to change the direction of governance.