No ID, No Entry

No ID, No Service? Why Vice Ganda's Take on the PH ID System Falls Short

During a recent episode of It's Showtime, host and actress Vice Ganda hit a sore spot when she accused what she called the "irony" of the Philippine ID system. Imitating a vexing situation common to many Filipinos, she demonstrated how some officials reject applicants who don't have a valid ID—when the reason they're applying in the first place is that they don't have one to start with.

"No ID? No ID. Kaya hindi ka magkaka-ID sa bansang 'to!"
– Vice Ganda, It's Showtime

The joke was met with guffaws and applause, but also prompted a necessary national discussion. Even though Vice's attitude was one shared by many, it's important that we look beyond the punchline here—because though the criticism is just in intent, the whole story is decidedly more complicated.

Google Photo

The Flawed Logic Behind the "No ID, No ID" Argument

Let’s break it down.

Yes, it does sound ridiculous at first: how can one be expected to show an ID in order to get one?

But what Vice Ganda failed to acknowledge is this: it’s not about being denied for not having any ID—it’s about verifying identity to prevent fraud, duplication, or exploitation of the system.

And the reality is, there are workarounds in place.

For example:

• When you apply for the PhilSys National ID, you don't have to submit a government ID—you can use other documents such as your birth certificate, barangay certification, or even school records.
• For other government IDs such as the Postal ID or Barangay Clearance, local certifying or witness validation can be substituted for formal IDs.
• For first-time claimants of SSS, PhilHealth, and Pag-IBIG, a certificate of live birth, or even barangay certification with photo, can be preliminary validation.

So the system isn't as closed-looped or ironic as the skit paints it out to be. It's just poorly explained—and sometimes inconsistently applied, particularly at the barangay or municipal level.

The Real Problem: Bureaucratic Culture, Not the ID System Itself

Vice Ganda's remarks picked at a deeper aspect than mere ID requirements—it brushed against the bureaucratic culture that excludes the poor, the undocumented, and the marginalized.

These are:

• Local government offices with variable documentation standards
• Frontliners who are not trained or who inflexibly apply procedures
• Inadequate digital infrastructure in far-flung areas, slowing down ID processing
• Government agencies' duplicative roles causing duplicate requirements

These are genuine issues. But accusing the entire ID system as ironic or "useless" is an oversimplification of the issue—and also preempts its solution.

What the Philippine ID System Actually Aims to Solve

National ID system (PhilSys) was implemented to make government services easier to access, reduce red tape, and provide one verifiable identity for every Filipino—even the undocumented ones.

Some of its advantages are:

• Access to banking for the unbanked
• Faster disbursement of government assistance
• Streamlined SIM card, passport, and employment application registration
• Less corruption through biometric identification

In short, the national ID is meant to put an end to the very vicious cycle Vice Ganda was mocking. And though rollout has been sluggish and bumpy, it's a move towards having a digital, inclusive, and secure identification system for all Filipinos.

A More Sensible Approach: Fix the Culture, Not Mock the System

Vice Ganda has undeniable influence, and we welcome her populism. We applaud her advocacy for the masses. But let us avoid transforming grave national issues into memes or slogans.

Yes, criticize inefficiencies.

Yes, bring attention to injustices.

But let us also:

• Push for public information campaigns regarding legitimate alternative documents
• Urge LGUs and agencies to streamline processes
• Call for accountability on the part of agencies for delayed or refused ID issuance
• Support digital ID reform that goes to the grassroots

The answer isn't to destroy the system with sarcasm—it's to require its better enforcement and accessibility.

Last Thoughts

The ID system in the Philippines is not perfect. It is not, however, necessarily broken or ironic either. It's a tool that—if enforced well—can empower millions and bridge gaps in access to public services.

Rather than make people laugh in despair, let's make them see their rights, their choices, and their strength to make them demand more.

Because the joke is not so much the ID requirement—it's when we allow myths to dissuade real reform.

About the impeachment

Impeachment of VP Sara Duterte: What Happened and Why It Matters

On February 5, 2025, Vice President Sara Duterte-Carpio became the first sitting Philippine vice president to face impeachment by the House of Representatives, marking a historic and highly controversial political episode. Philstar.com+10Philstar.com+10TIME+10

The Complaints: What Was She Accused Of?

Multiple groups filed three separate impeachment complaints between December 2024 and January 2025, by civil society organizations, religious leaders, lawyers, and victims’ families. 

Philstar.com+3Philstar.com+3Wikipedia+3

Allegations included:

• Misuse and malversation of over ₱612 million in confidential funds for the Office of the Vice President and DepEd. Philstar.com+10Philstar.com+10Wikipedia+10
• 
  
• Betrayal of public trust, graft & corruption, and undermining legislative oversight. AP News+15Philstar.com+15Philstar.com+15
• 
  
• Threats and extremist rhetoric, including alleged plotting to assassinate officials and inciting sedition. Wikipedia+2YouTube+2

The complaints consolidated into a fourth impeachment complaint, endorsed by 215 House members—a clear majority above the constitutional minimum of 102—fast-tracking it to the Senate without committee referrals. rappler.com+12PCIJ.org+12Philstar.com+12

The Legal Process: From House to Senate

Once the third complaint was filed, the House leadership invoked the "third mode" impeachment rule, allowing the complaint—now treated as Articles of Impeachment—to go directly to the Senate. PCIJ.org

What comes next:

House-appointed prosecutors (11 members) will argue the case in the Senate. Philstar.com

The Senate serves as the impeachment court; a two-thirds vote (16 of 24) is required to convict and remove Duterte.

Conviction leads to lifetime disqualification from public office, though no penalties like jail time are automatically imposed. Philstar.com+1

Civil society leaders—including Caritas Philippines—have called for a swift, impartial process, warning that delays weaken public trust. Reddit

What It Signals Politically

The impeachment came amid a bitter breakdown between Sara Duterte and allies of President Marcos Jr., who once traveled together during the 2022 elections. pna.gov.ph+9TIME+9YouTube+9

Her opponents—many now aligned with Marcos—worked to quickly secure the one-third vote needed. Notably, Sandro Marcos, the president’s son, endorsed the complaint. Philstar.com+1

Still, many Dutertes maintain a strong political base. Despite impeachment, Rodrigo Duterte was re-elected mayor of Davao while detained at the ICC, and other family allies won limelight Senate seats. TIME+1

Supreme Court Intervention: A Critical Twist

On July 25, 2025, the Philippine Supreme Court dismissed the impeachment complaint—not on merits but because it violated the constitutional rule banning multiple impeachment attempts within one year. Since three complaints had already been verified, the fourth was deemed unconstitutional. reuters.com

This ruling halts the Senate trial entirely for now and strengthens Sara Duterte’s political position, especially as a frontrunner for the 2028 presidential race. reuters.com

Key Takeaways

Final Perspective

Sara Duterte’s impeachment underscores a fractured political landscape in the Philippines. While accountability mechanisms are at work, the process also mirrors power struggles between two dynasties.

Her eventual fate is now paused—not decided—pending procedural timing. The constitutional safeguard that protected her may also embolden more legal challenges in the future.

A failed system

Cracks in the Nation: When Corruption Is Made Concrete

We walk in the Philippines on streets that deceive our feet and dump our faith into the concrete. We bring our children to schools where the paint is quicker in drying than the promises. We go to hospitals more concerned about the cost than the cure. This is not development—this is deceit incorporated into the blueprint of the system.

We live in a nation where bridges curve not due to traffic but under the weight of embezzled public money. Schools are built not to develop minds but to produce invoices. Hospitals are designed not to heal the ill but to hemorrhage government funds.

When concrete walls delaminate prior to the first day of classes being taught, we know there is something amiss. When a flood sweeps over a street freshly paved only the month before, we do not have to be engineers to feel betrayed. We know. Because we live it.

Google Photo

When Corruption Becomes Infrastructure

Philippine corruption is not a theoretical abstraction or a political slogan—it is infrastructure. It is in the rebar that is too flexible. It is in the classrooms that flood. It is in the bridges that collapse after ribbon-cutting ceremonies. This corruption is not merely a moral failing; it is the gradual, public hanging of the common good—signed off in triplicate and buried in bureaucracy.

We're told not to ask questions. We're told to let the experts handle it. We're told that we wouldn't be able to grasp it. But we're paying the price—and with our taxes, with our security, and sometimes with our lives.

The Real Cost: Broken Trust

Trust lost can be more difficult to restore than any bridge or monument. Each time a shortcut is used, each time the public money is diverted to be used for individual enrichment, the nation forfeits more than money—it loses hope. The people lose trust in government, in institutions, in the very notion that things will get better.

This rot is not concealed—it pervades everything. And still, silence is promoted. Passivity is the norm. Dissent is frowned upon.

The Call to Action: Inspect. Question. Speak.

It is not un-American to demand more.

It is our responsibility to ask questions about the projects that are undertaken in our name and with our funds. We are entitled to call for transparency. To visit roads and schools. To photograph decaying infrastructure. To object when our lives are put at risk by greed at the top.

Let it be said clearly: Silence is the concrete they would like to pour over our resistance. Each time we remain silent, they make a gain. Each time we shrug our shoulders at a clogged drainage system or a collapsed classroom ceiling, they get stronger.

So we must investigate. We must ask questions. We must record. We must voice our opinions.

Because if we don't, we become guilty of the burial of responsibility.

Hope, Built with Honesty

A country isn't constructed upon glitzy ribbon-cutting and golden-worded speeches. A country is constructed upon honor, openness, and service. We are worthy of bridges that won't buckle. Hospitals that will heal. Schools that will ignite. Storm-tested roads that hold.

They aren't frills—they are rights. And we won't get them through someone else being magnanimous with us. We need to make them.

Let's make a nation in which public projects really work for the public. Let's bring down the walls of silence and put up steel-strong scrutiny. Let's pave roads not with lies—but with truth, fairness, and accountability.

Is he even relevant?

Richard Heydarian: Should We Trust His Insights?

Richard Heydarian is a name that tends to generate controversy among political and academic circles. A well-known political analyst, columnist, and writer, Heydarian is regarded for his controversial views on geopolitics, international relations, and Philippine politics. But the question is — should we trust his insights? 

Richard Heydarian, Wikipedia

This blog takes a closer look at Heydarian's background, his perspectives, and how to critically evaluate his views.

Who is Richard Heydarian?

Richard Heydarian is a political science professor who is also a prolific author. He writes for major publications such as Al Jazeera, The New York Times, and Foreign Affairs. With a keen interest in Southeast Asian geopolitics, he has also done analyses on regional security, economic patterns, and leadership dynamics.

He has also written influential books like "The Rise of Duterte: A Populist Revolt Against Elite Democracy" and "The Indo-Pacific: Trump, China, and the New Struggle for Global Mastery", which have established his position as one of the greatest voices in the industry.

Why People Trust Heydarian?

1. Academic Credibility
   Heydarian is well-educated in political science, hence having a balanced point of view towards international and regional affairs. He is frequently sought after in academia and media platforms.
2. Media Presence
   A frequent face on global news networks, Heydarian provides clear and concise analysis that makes sense of intricate political events. His skill at deconstructing complex ideas into palatable insights is admirable.
3. Independent Perspective
   Unlike pundits who are aligned with one political party or another, Heydarian comes across as an independent analyst. His frank and critical appraisal of governments — foreign and domestic — has proven his interest in free interpretation.

Reasons for Skepticism

1. Personal BiasAlthough no analyst is completely bias-free, Heydarian's strong views tend to be polarizing at times. His critics suggest that his views might be biased towards certain narratives, which may affect the objectivity of his analysis.
2. Controversial Statements
   One of the examples that generated a lot of backlash was Heydarian's statement equating some areas of Mindanao to "sub-Saharan Africa" in economic underdevelopment. Although he probably meant to highlight the economic plight of the region, most Filipinos took offense and felt the comparison was reductionist. The social media backlash was quick, with individuals condemning him for reductionism in Mindanao's complex socio-economic context. This is an example of how tone and framing can at times overpower the intended message.
3. Selective Criticism
   Certain critics argue that Heydarian's criticisms might be more selective in targeting particular political leaders or policies, and less on other pertinent views.
4. Media Framing
   As a regular media commentator, Heydarian's opinions may at times be manipulated or magnified to suit particular narratives. It is important that readers and listeners contextualize and frame his utterances.

How to Analyze Heydarian's Insights?

1. Cross-Reference with Other Sources
   Don't just depend on the view of a single analyst. Compare Heydarian's opinions to that of other reputable analysts and institutions to gain a wider perspective.
2. Take into Account the Context
   Evaluate the context within which Heydarian is presenting his opinions. Is he giving a personal view, an academic analysis, or a media commentary? Any context can shape his tone and emphasis.
3. Identify Potential Bias
   Acknowledge that biases are inherent. The trick is to recognize them and balance their influence on the argument being made. Seek evidence-based reasoning and credible sources in his analysis.

Conclusion

So, do we trust Richard Heydarian? The answer is not a straightforward yes or no. To trust an analyst is not to blindly accept — it is to critically engage with what they have to say. Heydarian's experience and knowledge provide useful insights, but they are only one of many voices you should listen to when developing your own opinions.

In an age of information overload, the capacity to think critically and evaluate perspectives from multiple dimensions matters. You may agree or disagree with Heydarian, but his political contributions offer a foundation for richer dialogue.

At the end of the day, trust isn't granted — it's developed by being transparent, credible, and providing consistent insight. Be informed, be critical, and allow plurality of thought to inform your worldview.