Tweets and opinions are mine and ONLY mine... Get on with it
Manila
Joined May 2009
- Tweets55.3K
- Following99
- Followers2.1K
- Likes75.2K
Manuel Sevilla®️ retweeted
Always remember Deny–Deflect–Detract–Disorient (4D) Strategy, often used in political crisis management, disinformation operations, and narrative warfare.
They have been deployed since 2023 hence they cha ge narratives once cornered.
It is classic disinformation and crisis-containment playbook designed to overwhelm the public, fragment attention, and prevent a singular damaging narrative from taking hold. It does not aim to prove innocence but to create confusion, narrative fatigue, and doubt. The strategy weaponizes noise, not clarity.
Manuel Sevilla®️ retweeted
And there you are…
"You are a tool, nothing but a tool."
Scott Ritter, former US Marine intelligence officer, with a message for Filipinos :
> "You think America is your friend. So too did the Ukrainian people"
> "We are using you to gain some sort of momentary leverage over the Chinese"
> "when the tool ceases to be useful, we will discard you"
> "China is not your enemy. China is your neighbor"
Harsh words. Now look at the facts on the ground.
A US colony from 1898 to 1946.
Today : 9 EDCA sites open to US forces, a Typhon missile launcher on Luzon since April 2024, and in May the first Tomahawk ever fired from Philippine soil.
Every one of those points at China. Every one of them turns the Philippines into a target.
Whose war is being prepared in Luzon ? And who would pay for it ?
Manuel Sevilla®️ retweeted
Israel is the only country in the world that can bomb 9 countries and invade 3 neighboring countries in one year; kill 100,000 people—including 25,000 children—in 1,000 days; displace nearly 6 million people in 3 countries; starve 2 million people in Gaza; violate Geneva and Vienna Conventions, international law, human rights, and state sovereignty; kidnap, rape and torture children and women; shoot, imprison and murdering; and still be perceived as the victim.
Manuel Sevilla®️ retweeted
Before Hollywood, I was living in a van in Hawaii and waiting tables at Bubba Gump Shrimp Company. One day, the incredible Rae Dawn Chong walked into the restaurant, and naturally, I went up to her table and said, “Hey, you’re a movie star! What are you doing here?”
She asked if I could act, and I said, “Fuck yeah, put me in your movie!”
She asked for my phone number. The only problem was I didn’t have one. So I gave her my buddy Mike’s number instead. A couple days later, Mike casually mentions, “Oh, by the way, someone called you.” ARE YOU KIDDING ME, MIKE?!
I called her back, and sure enough, she was serious. I drove over to pick up the script, went back to Mike’s house, and read all 120 pages three times in a row. First script I’d ever read. My character's name was Devon, and I remember thinking, “Sweet! I could totally play a Devon!”
I showed up to the audition with every line and inflection mapped out in pencil. Rae told me I could act and offered me the part. I asked if we were shooting in Hawaii. Nope. Los Angeles.
I had about $60 to my name, a bag of clothes, and some rollerblades.
Then Rae told me they'd fly me out. And I remember thinking right then and there, my life just changed forever. I'm going to be an actor.
That little movie was Cursed Part 3, a low-budget horror comedy that opened the door to Hollywood for me.
I'll forever be grateful to Rae for taking a chance on a kid working at a shrimp restaurant. Everybody starts somewhere, and this is where it all began for me.
Manuel Sevilla®️ retweeted
Public Statement
Subject: Whistleblower Under Fire: Defending Truth Amid Dengvaxia Cover‑Ups
I acknowledge the recent press briefing calling for an investigation into my professional conduct. While I respect the right of colleagues to raise concerns, I reject attempts to weaponize institutions to silence those who speak for accountability.
The same group of individuals now questioning my ethics were among those who rapidly launched the Dengvaxia vaccination program in 2016—injecting hundreds of thousands of children without the benefit of testing for serostatus. This indiscriminate rollout led to tragic outcomes, with families mourning the loss of their children.
It must be remembered that in 2017, both the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee and the House Committee on Accountability determined the fate of this program, placing responsibility on those who pushed its premature implementation. These findings remain part of the public record and reinforce the credibility of the call for justice.
Instead of addressing the consequences of those decisions, the whistleblower who stood for truth and victims’ rights has become the target of reputational attacks. These efforts are not about ethics; they are about cover‑ups and intimidation.
I remain steadfast. My commitment is not to titles or positions, but to the principles of transparency, integrity, and accountability in public health. No sanction or smear campaign can erase the facts of the Dengvaxia tragedy, nor silence the voices of the victims and their families.
I will continue to fight—calmly, humbly, and with moral clarity. I will pursue all legal remedies available, appeal unjust sanctions, and stand firm in my testimony. This is not about me; it is about justice, ethics, and the future of our profession.
Manuel Sevilla®️ retweeted
Unchecked Vaults, Unchecked Conscience
Associate Justice Amy Lazaro‑Javier’s concurring opinion is a warning shot: Congress has subverted the nation’s economic and constitutional stability. Though lawmakers hold the “power of the purse,” they are barred from breaching the spending ceiling set by the President’s National Expenditure Program.
What was meant to be a contingent safety valve has been transformed into an unchecked vault — a weaponized buffer that erodes fiscal discipline and public trust.
Unprogrammed funds were never meant to be political currency. They are statutory standby lines, unlocked only when the nation earns unexpected revenue or secures new foreign loans. To twist them into parallel budgets is to betray the covenant of accountability.
But this moment is not just about numbers. It is about character. Doing right when it costs nothing is easy. The true test comes when truth demands sacrifice — when standing for integrity risks privilege, comfort, or power.
In the crossroads of politics and conscience, many choose camouflage. Yet integrity is not negotiable. It is forged in silence, when temptation whispers and conscience resists.
This is a defining moment. Never give up on righteousness, even when compromise is rewarded. The truth may cost you, but it will never bankrupt your soul.
— Dr. Tony Leachon
Manuel Sevilla®️ retweeted
SC decision shows: Marcos Jr. regime the most corrupt since 1986
October 23, 2026 | Read time: 8 minutes
THE Supreme Court's declaration that the 2024 and 2025 national budgets, and even a part of the 2026 General Appropriations Act, were unconstitutional, and its detailed analysis to support this finding, point to an incontrovertible conclusion: President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and the 19th Congress that he and his cousin, former House Speaker Martin Romualdez, controlled was the most corrupt regime in our post-EDSA history.
In our history since we became an independent nation, never has the highest court of the land declared a budget made by the president and the Congress as violating the Constitution. The accompanying chart here vividly shows a sordid picture of the second Marcos regime, incomparable to past administrations.
The extraordinary amounts in “unprogrammed” funds released, the manipulation of appropriations by Congress, and Marcos’ approval and implementation of the 2024 and 2025 budgets present a picture of corruption at an unprecedented scale, extending from Congress to Malacañang. No wonder the House of Representatives has undertaken with so much enthusiasm Marcos’ plot to impeach Vice President Sara Duterte, to ban her from running for the presidency in 2028.
Unprogrammed funds are standby appropriations in the national budget that the government may spend only when funding is available, generally when state revenues are enough to finance them. Unlike regular, or programmed, appropriations, they are not supposed to be immediately available for expenditure simply because Congress has approved them.
Marcos signed into law the budgets that Congress approved, according to the Supreme Court decision, with an unprecedented P1.2 trillion in unprogrammed funds, much of which were funds the president had the discretion to release for whatever projects. According to Senate investigations on this scandal, P240 billion were released for flood control projects in 2024 and 2025, or 22 percent of the total P1 trillion unprogrammed appropriations in 2024 and 2025. Fourteen of the high court’s 15 justices agreed with the decision penned by Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, with only Justice Antonio Kho, Jr. dissenting.
A substantial chunk of these unprogrammed funds was released for what turned out to be “ghost” or never-implemented but funded flood-control projects or those that were extremely defective. Sen. Panfilo Lacson estimated that P79 billion, or a third of the P240 billion allocated for flood control, were pocketed by legislators, local government officials and DPWH personnel, as the projects were not really implemented or were defective.
Accountable
Marcos himself therefore is accountable for this massive and unprecedented flood-control scam, as he approved the budget and through his budget secretary, released its huge funds for it.
Of course, the Supreme Court did not declare the Marcos administration corrupt, as it is not a criminal court but only a decider of constitutional issues, and after all, it was not the plea of the petitioners. But it established something legally distinct but politically devastating: Two successive national budgets enacted during his presidency patently violated the Constitution, allocating a trillion pesos of taxpayers’ money illegally.
The court also invalidated provisions governing unprogrammed appropriations in the 2026 budget, the third national budget affected by its ruling. Thus, constitutional defects appeared in three consecutive budgets under Marcos, although the 2026 violations were of a different character and involved the succeeding 20th Congress. However, it points to the fact that violating the constitutional provisions on the budget was a Marcos modus operandi in hijacking the budget.
The 2024 budget contained an unconstitutional increase of P450 billion in unprogrammed appropriations, while the 2025 budget exceeded the president's proposed appropriations by another P18 billion through the Department of Public Works and Highways' “Special Road Fund,” allegedly another mechanism for corruption. The court even noted that the unprogrammed funds were drastically reduced in 2026 only because of the widely publicized hearings on the flood-control scams.
The 2024 and 2025 budgets were enacted by the 19th Congress, with Romualdez, Marcos' cousin and principal political ally, serving as House speaker throughout. Juan Miguel Zubiri was Senate president when the 2024 budget was approved; Francis Escudero headed the Senate when the 2025 budget was enacted. Sonny Angara headed the Senate panel for the 2024 budget, while Grace Poe headed it for 2025. Former congressman Zaldy Co, Romualdez’s right-hand man who is now a fugitive from the plunder charges involving the flood-control projects filed by the Ombudsman, headed the House panel.
Marcos
It was Marcos who signed these budgets into law; he could have vetoed the huge unprogrammed budgets, but he didn’t. Marcos, it seems, allowed the House members under the control of his cousin Romualdez to put into the budget the kind of funds they wanted for themselves. In exchange, they agreed to approve the funds that Marcos wanted himself such as his huge confidential (secretly disbursed) fund, which totaled P4.6 billion annually from 2024 to 2026.
Furthermore, Marcos had put into the budget the proposed funds which he could release at his discretion.
One of these was the Sagip fund (Strengthening Assistance for Government Infrastructure and Social Programs), which was a massive lump-sum allocation in the budget used to support infrastructure and social projects under unprogrammed appropriations.
The Supreme Court ruled that Sagip constituted a prohibited lump-sum appropriation because it transferred essential project-identification and allocation decisions to the executive branch after enactment. The court described Sagip as a “covert repository of lump-sum allocations for DPWH infrastructure, including flood-control projects.”
Sagip received P225 billion in the 2024 budget and P160 billion in the 2025 budget. Of the 2024 allocation, approximately P87 billion was associated with flood-control projects.
For 2025, the Marcos administration itself had proposed approximately P78 billion for Sagip. Congress increased the allocation to approximately P160 billion, an increase of P82 billion, or more than double the president's original proposal.
Pork barrel
The Supreme Court had already declared the old congressional pork-barrel system unconstitutional in 2013. Yet more than a decade later, another lump-sum arrangement with pork-barrel characteristics emerged within the national budget, providing enormous discretion over infrastructure spending.
The court's findings also identified other programs that benefited from the artificial fiscal space created by congressional budget adjustments.
These included the Department of Health's medical assistance to indigents, the Department of Social Welfare and Development's Ayuda sa Kapos ang Kita Program (AKAP), and the Department of Labor and Employment's Tulong Panghanapbuhay sa Ating Disadvantaged or Displaced Workers (Tupad).
These programs were valuable tools for Marcos since they were directed at his or Romualdez’s discretion. They delivered infrastructure projects, medical assistance, cash aid and temporary employment to constituents of congressional representatives that he selected, in exchange for their support, especially for Sara Duterte’s impeachment. No wonder the House has been such a Marcos minion.
The Supreme Court's findings concerning the bicameral conference committee are among the most disturbing parts of its ruling.
Independent
The bicameral committee is supposed to reconcile differences between the budget versions approved by the House and Senate. It is not intended to become an independent legislative body empowered to rewrite the budget behind closed doors.
Yet the court found that the committee made substantial changes without proper records of its discussions, explanations for increases and decreases, or documents supporting the alterations.
The court specifically noted that these omissions violated the rules of the House and Senate themselves.
Hundreds of billions of pesos were consequently rearranged through a process whose documentary record was inadequate to establish why particular changes had been made.
Whether the Marcos administration is the most corrupt since 1986 of course ultimately requires evidence of actual diversion of funds, fraudulent contracts, kickbacks, personal enrichment and the responsibility of particular officials. However, what the figures do establish is the extraordinary scale of the spending that could be mechanisms for corruption.
The Supreme Court has also made clear that the doctrine of operative fact, which protects certain irreversible transactions undertaken in good faith, “does not automatically shield the authors, proponents or implementers of unconstitutional measures from criminal, civil or administrative liability.” My reading of that statement is that the court is saying: “Impeach Marcos, criminally charge his accomplices.”
After all, he violated the Constitution he has sworn to uphold. Isn’t that a ground for impeachment much more serious than those hurled against Vice President Sara?
Justice Marvic Leonen, who wrote the decision, emphasized the gravity of Marcos’ and the Congress’ violation of the Constitution, in his very first three paragraphs:
“Every peso collected in taxes and fees represents labor rendered, needs deferred, perseverance, and sacrifice endured by our people. The General Appropriations Act must honor that sacrifice. It is among the most consequential enactments of government: It determines how public resources will be used to respond to our people's suffering and to advance their hopes and aspirations. It has never been a catalogue of licenses to abuse or to steal. This court is asked again, through these petitions, to exercise its delicate constitutional duty to draw firmer constitutional boundaries against greed and abuse.”
Greed and abuse by Marcos and his accomplices, the Supreme Court in effect revealed.
New column every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Follow the page so you don't miss one.
Manuel Sevilla®️ retweeted
"It has never been a catalogue of licenses to abuse or to steal." Justice Marvic Leonen, on the national budget. The Supreme Court struck down the 2024 and 2025 budgets Marcos signed. Who should answer for it? Tomorrow's column has the answer.
Manuel Sevilla®️ retweeted
From 1948 to this day the world lets Israel mass slaughter children and leave their corpses to rot.
The next time you look at the face of @SenatorWong or @Eurovision remember this.
Manuel Sevilla®️ retweeted
P450 billion, added unconstitutionally to the 2024 budget. Marcos signed it into law. The Supreme Court has struck down the 2024 and 2025 budgets, a first in our history.
Today's column: SC decision shows: Marcos Jr. regime the most corrupt since 1986
Manuel Sevilla®️ retweeted
From citizenship to letters and then doors?
Two letters purportedly written by Philippine Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr to a US official have surfaced online. Both letters name Peter Enzminger as the recipient. He is listed as a counselor at the US Embassy in Manila and is reportedly linked to the CIA.
·The first letter, dated July 31, 2026, says the US interests are the "highest guiding principle" of Teodoro's official duties. It suggests Philippine operations near Ren'ai Reef were deliberately conducted to provoke China, even at risk to Philippine personnel, and presents his possible rise to the presidency as strategically advantageous to the US.
·The second, dated May 29, 2026, but circulated later, discusses pushing a multibillion-dollar purchase of F-16 fighter jets and other US weapons. It suggests major defense purchases were used to win favor with Washington.
The Philippine Department of National Defense has called the first letter fake, while the second remains unverified. But the allegations demand a serious and independent investigation. If proven true, they would suggest Teodoro's actions serve neither Philippine interests nor the country's sovereignty. #MediaUnlocked
Manuel Sevilla®️ retweeted
Marcos called him a liar. The Supreme Court has now struck down the budget he warned about.
Jan. 18, 2025: Former President Rodrigo Duterte said the 2025 budget had items left blank "to be filled up later on." His verdict: "The budget, in totality, is invalid."
Jan. 20, 2025: President Marcos called him a liar.
March 11, 2025: Duterte was kidnapped and flown to The Hague.
Oct. 20, 2026: The Supreme Court declared the 2024 and 2025 national budgets unconstitutional. It struck down the unprogrammed appropriations (standby funds that can only be released if revenue beats targets), which the bicameral committee increased by P449.5 billion in 2024. The court also noted the committee kept no records of the changes it made.
Duterte raised the alarm 21 months ago. Who answers for it now?
Share this so people remember who called it first.
Manuel Sevilla®️ retweeted
Al periodista que filmó este material, lo matar0n los IDF d i$rahell en mayo 2025. Es un papá Palestino al q asesinar0n cuando trataba de agarrar el cuerpo de su hijo, también asesinad0 por los soldaditos más morales del planeta. Esta es la cadena de muerte que sigue I$rahell
Manuel Sevilla®️ retweeted
A Palestinian father was shot dead by an Israeli sniper while trying to retrieve his son’s body after Israeli forces killed the child.
The footage was documented by journalist Hassan Salih, who was later killed by Israel on May 13, 2025, while covering the atrocities in Gaza.
Manuel Sevilla®️ retweeted
The Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional, first, the 2024 General Appropriations Act because of Congress’s increase of the unprogrammed appropriations by PHP 449.5 billion, which resulted in an increase in the president’s total recommended appropriations, second, Special Provisions 1(a) and (b), Chapter XLIII of the 2026 General Appropriations Act, and third, the 2025 General Appropriations Act because of Congress’s increase of the Special Road Fund by PHP 17.99 billion, which also resulted in an increase in the president’s total recommended appropriations.
In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the Supreme Court En Banc, granted the petition of Edcel C. Lagman et al. (G.R. No. 271059) and partly granted the petition of Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III et al. (G.R. No. 271347) challenging the increase in unprogrammed appropriations made by Congress in the 2024 General Appropriations Act (GAA). It declared unconstitutional Republic Act No. 11975 or the 2024 GAA because the total appropriations were effectively increased by PHP 449.5 billion.
The SC also granted the petition by Filipinos for Peace, Justice and Progress Movement, Inc. et al. (G.R. No. E-02472). It declared unconstitutional Republic Act No. 12116 or the 2025 GAA because of the PHP 17.99-billion increase to the DPWH Special Road Fund made by Congress, which resultantly increased the president’s total recommended appropriations.
As regards the PHP 12.75-billion increase to certain agencies’ Special Accounts in the General Fund (SAGF), these were found to have violated Book VI, Chapter 4, Section 25 of the Administrative Code, which prohibits increasing amounts in special provisions beyond those proposed by the president.
The SC partly granted Edgar R. Erice and Leila M. De Lima’s petition (G.R. No. E-04036) challenging the constitutionality of Chapter XLIII of the 2026 GAA, which authorizes unprogrammed appropriations.
The Supreme Court ruled that Unprogrammed Appropriations are not unconstitutional per se. However, this budgetary item needs clear limits and safeguards to preserve fiscal discipline, transparency, and accountability. They become constitutionally infirm when they lack sufficient standards, effectively granting the Executive unchecked spending authority that weakens fiscal discipline and undermines funding for programmed projects when estimated government revenues are not realized. The Court further ruled that the budgetary ceiling imposed under Article VI, Sec. 25(1) of the Constitution applies to the total of programmed and unprogrammed appropriations.
The Court thus emphasized that to be constitutional, unprogrammed appropriations must comply with the following conditions:
a. In no case shall there be lump sums in Unprogrammed Appropriations.
b. As part of Congress’s legislative oversight, and given the distinction between spending for the deficit and spending through unprogrammed appropriations, the conditions for the use of new income, as well as additional earnings of the Government from non-tax revenue sources, should be clearly differentiated between programmed and unprogrammed expenditures, with Congress presumptively using these new funds for programmed expenditures, except when there are clear and convincing reasons, such as foreign assisted projects, for including them under Unprogrammed Appropriations.
c. Congress should prescribe sufficient standards in terms of prioritization for spending when there is more than one purpose under the Unprogrammed Appropriations.
d. The provision for Unprogrammed Appropriations should be within the national fiscal program established in the Budget and consistent with its nature as a narrow contingent appropriation.
The SC permanently prohibited the Senate, House of Representatives, Office of the Executive Secretary, and the Department of Budget and Management Acting Secretary from implementing Special Provision 1(a) and (b), Chapter XLIII of the 2026 GAA.
As to the 2024 and 2025 GAA, the SC held that the doctrine of operative fact applies. However, the doctrine covers only irreversible programs whose beneficiaries acted in good faith. It does not shield authors, proponents, or implementors from criminal, civil, or administrative liability unless the proper tribunals explicitly find that they acted in good faith.
Read the full text of the Press Release at: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17546….
Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-a….
