Church or Kingmaker? The Controversial Power Play of the INC in Philippine Politics!

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

​In the intricate tapestry of Philippine society, the intersection of religion and politics often sparks intense debate. A recent statement encapsulates this sentiment: "In matters of international law, I would trust the ICC rather than the INC. The latter is simply not a trusted institution." This perspective underscores concerns about the Iglesia ni Cristo's (INC) involvement in political affairs and its potential implications for governance and justice.​

The Iglesia ni Cristo's Political Engagement

The INC, established in 1914, has grown into one of the Philippines' most influential religious organizations, boasting millions of members both domestically and internationally. Historically, the INC has practiced "bloc voting," wherein its members are encouraged to vote uniformly for candidates endorsed by the church's leadership. This practice amplifies the INC's political clout, making its endorsement highly coveted during elections.​

In the 2022 presidential elections, the INC officially endorsed Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. for president and Sara Duterte-Carpio for vice president. This endorsement was announced on Net25, a network associated with the INC, just days before the election. Such endorsements are significant, given the INC's substantial following and the tendency of its members to adhere to the church's voting directives. ​

Debate Over Religious Involvement in Politics

The INC's active participation in political endorsements has sparked discussions about the appropriate role of religious organizations in governance. Critics argue that such involvement blurs the line between church and state, potentially prioritizing institutional interests over national welfare. An anecdote highlights this concern: when questioning a high-ranking INC official about their support for morally questionable candidates, the response was that their choices are based on what's beneficial for the church, not necessarily the nation.​

This perspective raises ethical questions about the motivations behind political endorsements and the potential consequences for democratic processes. When religious institutions leverage their influence to sway political outcomes, it can lead to a scenario where policies favor a specific group, potentially marginalizing others and undermining the principles of equal representation.​

Trust in Institutions: ICC vs. INC

The statement contrasting trust in the International Criminal Court (ICC) with the INC touches on broader issues of accountability and justice. The ICC, as an international tribunal, is mandated to prosecute individuals for crimes like genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Its role is to uphold international law and ensure that egregious violations do not go unpunished.​

In the context of the Philippines, the ICC has been involved in investigating allegations related to former President Rodrigo Duterte's "war on drugs," where thousands of individuals were reportedly killed. Recent testimonies have brought these issues back into the spotlight, emphasizing the need for impartial investigations and justice for the victims. ​

On the other hand, the INC's involvement in political matters has led some to question its impartiality and the potential for conflicts of interest. When a religious institution with significant influence engages directly in politics, it raises concerns about decisions being made that serve specific groups rather than the broader populace.​

The Call for Apolitical Religious Institutions

The sentiment that "the INC should be apolitical" reflects a desire for religious organizations to focus on spiritual guidance rather than political maneuvering. An apolitical stance could help preserve the sanctity of religious institutions, ensuring they remain inclusive spaces for all believers, regardless of political affiliation.​

Moreover, by refraining from political endorsements, religious organizations can avoid potential repercussions associated with political shifts and maintain their moral authority. This approach aligns with the principle of separation of church and state, which aims to prevent the undue influence of religious bodies on governmental affairs and vice versa.​

Conclusion

The intertwining of religion and politics in the Philippines presents complex challenges that necessitate careful consideration. While religious organizations like the INC play pivotal roles in the cultural and spiritual lives of many Filipinos, their involvement in political matters raises questions about impartiality, governance, and the broader implications for democracy. As the nation continues to evolve, an ongoing dialogue about the appropriate boundaries between religious influence and political authority remains essential to uphold the principles of justice, equality, and good governance.​

Stop Calling Them ‘Father’ or ‘Mother’—The Dirty Trick Politicians Use to Control You

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

They Are Not Your Mother. They Are Not Your Father.

Every election season, politicians try to win votes by pretending to be the "father" or "mother" of the people. From the barangay level to Malacañang, this rhetoric is used repeatedly—almost as if they were following the same script. But let’s not be fooled. They are not your relatives. You are not their child. And most importantly, they should not be treated as parental figures.

This campaign strategy is not just about showing concern. It has a name in Latin—“parens patriae.” Under this concept, the government is seen as the "parent" of its citizens. This means that while the state supposedly protects its people, in return, the people are expected to give their unquestioning loyalty—just like children obeying their parents.

It may sound noble at first, but if you look closely, it is a manipulative tactic designed to suppress critical thinking and turn citizens into blind followers.

Are You a Bad "Child" for Thinking Critically?

In Filipino culture, a child who disobeys their parents is often seen as “bad.” But what happens when this mindset is applied to politics? That’s dangerous.

If you question the government about its failures—you’re a bad child.

If you criticize policies that only benefit the elite—you’re a bad child.

If you demand justice and accountability—you’re a bad child.

Why? Because to politicians who use the "father-mother" narrative, citizens should never question their authority. We are expected to simply obey, never doubt, and never complain. But believing in this kind of deception is a serious mistake.

In a true democracy, decisions should not rest solely in the hands of the government. Democracy requires transparency, accountability, and responsible leadership. And if a politician needs to use sentimental drama to avoid real issues—that’s an immediate red flag.

You Don’t Need a Parental Government—You Need Good Governance

Remember where public funds come from—from the taxes we pay. From barangay staff salaries to the president’s paycheck, it is the people’s money that funds the government. That means we owe them nothing. We are their bosses, not helpless children relying on their mercy.

And if you are a voter and taxpayer, you don’t need a government that pretends to be your parent. What you need is competent, responsible, and genuinely caring leadership—not mere theatrics on a campaign stage.

So in this election, if a candidate tries to win votes by calling themselves the "father" or "mother" of the people—IMMEDIATE REJECTION.

They are not your parents.

And you are not a child they can deceive with sweet words.

*Cover image: from Manila Standard

Mocha Uson and the Myth of "RIP Freedom of Speech"

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

Mocha Uson has once again taken to social media, wailing about the supposed "death" of free speech as if she were some valiant warrior for truth. But let’s be real—she’s not a truth-teller, she’s a serial misinformation machine. There’s a massive difference between being censored and being held accountable for spreading fake news. And no, Mocha, getting called out for your falsehoods is not oppression—it’s just people demanding the bare minimum: facts.

Freedom of Speech Isn’t a License to Deceive

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, but it doesn’t mean freedom from facts or freedom from consequences. It’s not a "get out of jail free" card for those who deliberately peddle disinformation. The moment you step into the arena of public discourse, you open yourself up to scrutiny. And if your idea of "truth" is 99.9% chismis and 0.1% poorly-researched Google searches, then expect people to call you out. That’s not an attack on free speech—that’s society refusing to let misinformation slide.

Mocha loves to paint herself as a misunderstood patriot, bravely speaking out while being "silenced" by the so-called "elite." But let’s not kid ourselves—this isn’t about silencing her. It’s about making sure that people with influence don’t poison public discourse with outright lies.

The Difference Between Censorship and Consequences

Censorship happens when the government or powerful institutions actively suppress dissenting voices. What Mocha Uson experiences isn’t censorship—it’s the natural consequence of spreading falsehoods. When journalists, fact-checkers, and the general public push back against her, it’s not an authoritarian crackdown. It’s society collectively saying, "Enough with the lies."

Let’s put it simply:

If a government bans you from speaking, that’s censorship.

If a platform removes your content because it violates community standards, that’s moderation.

If people call you out for misinformation, that’s accountability.

Mocha isn’t a victim. She’s just facing the backlash that comes when people finally get tired of the nonsense.

The Dangerous Impact of Fake News

The problem with people like Mocha Uson isn’t just that they’re loud—it’s that they’re loud and wrong, and their words have real-world consequences. Misinformation erodes trust in institutions, fuels division, and can even endanger lives. We’ve seen this in elections, public health crises, and even national security issues. A single viral lie can spread faster than the truth, and people like Mocha thrive on that chaos.

In a world where misinformation spreads like wildfire, accountability is crucial. If we don’t push back against falsehoods, we allow them to shape public perception and policy. And that’s dangerous.

Try Accountability, It’s Cute

Instead of crying "RIP freedom of speech" every time she’s caught misleading the public, maybe Mocha Uson should try something different—like accountability. It might not be as dramatic as playing the victim, but it’s a lot more respectable. Imagine a world where public figures admit their mistakes, learn from them, and strive to do better. Revolutionary, right?

But until then, the least we can do is call out misinformation when we see it. Not because we’re against free speech, but because we believe in responsible speech. And that, Mocha, is the real truth.