Palace Maintains Silence on Leviste's 'De Facto Martial Law' Remarks
Malacañang has opted for a no comment stance regarding the recent statements made by Batangas 1st District Representative Leandro Leviste, who alleged that the Philippines is currently under a de facto martial law. The Palace's decision underscores its position that not all erroneous opinions warrant an official response.
Palace Press Officer's Firm Response
According to Palace Press Officer Claire Castro, "Not all wrong opinions deserve a response from the Palace. That's all." This brief but pointed remark came in the wake of a video released by Leviste, where he not only reiterated his martial law claims but also asserted that the administration is targeting individuals who expose corruption with legal actions.
Government's Openness to Criticism Clarified
Despite the refusal to engage with Leviste's specific allegations, Malacañang emphasized that the government remains open to criticism. Castro noted that there are still individuals who openly criticize and level accusations against the President without facing repercussions. This highlights a nuanced approach where dissent is tolerated, but certain claims are deemed unworthy of acknowledgment.
No Legal Actions Against Critics, Says Palace
In clarifying its position, the Palace stressed that the President does not file cases against his critics. However, it was made clear that if any individuals face legal consequences for their speech or actions, it is due to clear violations of existing laws, not as a form of political retaliation. This distinction aims to address concerns about freedom of expression while upholding legal standards.
Context and Implications
The controversy stems from Leviste's persistent allegations, which have sparked debates about governance and civil liberties in the Philippines. By choosing not to comment, Malacañang avoids fueling further speculation, yet this move also raises questions about how the administration handles high-profile criticisms. The situation reflects ongoing tensions between political figures and the executive branch, with implications for public discourse and accountability.
