Economic Sabotage as Terrorism: The Marcos-Araneta-Romualdez Network and the Betrayal of National Security

By: Arnedo S. Valera, Esquire

In the face of worsening poverty, inequality, and systemic corruption, the Filipino people are forced to confront a fundamental question: when does corruption cease to be a mere violation of anti-graft laws and begin to constitute terrorism under Philippine law? Recent revelations concerning the diversion of public resources by individuals embedded in the highest echelons of political power demand such inquiry. The brazenness of certain officials—emboldened by an apparent cloak of protection from the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)—has raised the stakes beyond ordinary graft. What is at issue here is the destabilization of the Republic itself.

The Military Question

The Armed Forces of the Philippines has historically played a pivotal role in safeguarding constitutional democracy. The institution, bound by its oath to defend the people and the state, remains one of the last bulwarks of legitimacy in times of political crisis. Yet, when whispers emerge that select figures within the AFP’s uppermost chain of command have aligned themselves with political actors engaged in systemic looting, the very credibility of the military is threatened.

This does not indict the whole AFP—indeed, most soldiers remain loyal to the Republic and its citizens. Rather, it highlights how the capture of key commands by political elites creates the perception that the military has become a shield for impunity. That perception alone erodes democratic trust and corrodes the people’s faith in the state.

From Corruption to Terrorism

The Philippines is no stranger to plunder. Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, punishes public officers who cause undue injury to the government or give unwarranted benefits to private parties through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.[^1] Republic Act No. 7080, or the Plunder Law, further criminalizes the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth amounting to at least ₱50 million through a series of overt acts.[^2]

Yet the gravity of what has been alleged goes far beyond enrichment at the public’s expense. Republic Act No. 11479, the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, defines terrorism broadly to include acts intended to cause “extensive damage or destruction to a government or public facility, critical infrastructure, or private property” or those designed to “seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, economic, or social structures of the country.”[^3]

By this statutory yardstick, systemic diversion of national wealth—the national treasury itself—cannot be trivialized as “mere corruption.” When state coffers are plundered on a monumental scale, the consequences devastate the ability of the government to provide basic services, exacerbate poverty, and undermine political stability. This constitutes economic sabotage that strikes at the heart of the nation’s social and political foundations.

The Taiwan Diversion

Equally troubling is the strategic narrative promoted by President Marcos, Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro, AFP Chief of Staff General Romeo Brawner, and Vice Admiral Roy Vincent Trinidad. The fixation on a hypothetical war in Taiwan diverts attention from the immediate war against poverty and institutionalized graft within the Philippines.

This deliberate shifting of public discourse serves a dual function: it creates a false sense of external threat while concealing the internal rot of a mafiosi-style criminal structure embedded within government. Such misdirection is itself a form of psychological sabotage against the people, manipulating national consciousness to deflect accountability.

Terrorism in the Guise of Governance

The essence of terrorism is the use of unlawful means to sow fear, destabilization, and destruction of the social order. While public imagination often limits this to bombs, assassinations, or armed rebellion, Philippine law explicitly includes economic destruction as a qualifying form.

The wanton looting of the national treasury, engineered by the Marcos-Araneta-Romualdez network, represents a “planned, wanton, and monumental heist.” Its effects—massive inequality, loss of public trust, and the incapacitation of state institutions—mirror the destabilizing impact of terrorist acts. By any legal and moral measure, those involved in this systemic sacking of the Republic’s resources are no less terrorists than those who wield arms.

Conclusion

The time has come to recognize that corruption on a monumental scale, when it deliberately undermines the economic and political stability of a nation, is indistinguishable from terrorism. RA 11479 is unambiguous: the destruction of political and economic structures through unlawful means constitutes terrorism.

Thus, those who orchestrate and benefit from the systematic looting of the Philippine state should not only be tried for graft or plunder but also for terrorism. The Filipino people must reclaim both the language and the law to confront the true nature of this betrayal. To do otherwise is to concede defeat to those who weaponize power against their own nation.

Notes & References

[1]: Republic Act No. 3019, Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (1960), §3.

[2]: Republic Act No. 7080, An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder (1991), §2. See Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560 (Nov. 19, 2001), where the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Plunder Law and clarified its elements.

[3]: Republic Act No. 11479, Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, §4. See also Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council, G.R. No. 178552 (Oct. 5, 2010), which discussed the balance between state security and constitutional freedoms under earlier anti-terrorism legislation.#

Atty. Arnedo S. Valera is  a Co- Executive Director / Founder of the Global Migrant Heritage Foundation and Managing Attorney of Valera & Associates, a U.S. immigration and anti-discrimination law firm he has led for more than 32 years. He is a New York lawyer and Philippine Attorney since 1985.He is a Ford Foundation and Asia Foundation Scholar, holding a master’s degree in International Affairs and International Law and Human Rights from Columbia University, New York, with further training at the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. He earned his Bachelor of Laws from Ateneo de Manila University and his AB in Philosophy from the University of Santo Tomas. A committed educator, he serves as a professor at the San Beda Graduate School of Law (LLM Program), teaching International Security and Alliances. He is also a columnist writer for Inquirer.net and a pro-bono attorney for several nonprofit organizations in the United States.