TINGOG party-list Rep. Jude Acidre on Thursday called on Navotas Rep. Toby Tiangco to “stop misleading the public,” as he dismissed allegations that lawmakers were enticed with government aid and project allocations to support the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte.
“Rep. Toby Tiangco should stop misleading the public,” Acidre said, stressing that accusations must be backed by proof.
“Serious allegations require serious proof, not hearsay, secondhand claims, or tsismis dressed up as fact,” he said.
Acidre rejected Tiangco’s claim that the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) had already established the alleged wrongdoing, citing the commission’s own statement.
“The ICI referral itself, signed by retired Supreme Court Justice Andres Reyes, explicitly states: ‘This referral is issued without any finding or conclusion of guilt or liability on the part of Former Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez,’” Acidre said.
“That is not interpretation. That is the Commission’s own language,” Acidre said.
“So let us be precise: There is no finding of guilt. There is no conclusion of liability. There is no proof established by the ICI.”
“What exists is a referral for further investigation—nothing more, nothing less,” Acidre added.
Acidre challenged Tiangco to substantiate his claims linking lawmakers’ signatures to programs such as AICS, AKAP, TUPAD and infrastructure allocations.
“If he is claiming that Members of the House signed an impeachment complaint in exchange for AICS, AKAP, TUPAD, or infrastructure allocations, then he should do the responsible thing: Name names. Present evidence. Submit it under oath,” he said.
“Anything less is pure speculation—and worse, disinformation that undermines the integrity of the House,” he added.
The lawmaker said he personally witnessed the discussions and signing of the first impeachment complaint, disputing Tiangco’s assertions.
“Let me be absolutely clear. I was present during the discussions and the signing of the first impeachment complaint. Rep. Tiangco was not,” Acidre said.
“He was nowhere to be found during those critical moments. He did not witness the deliberations. He did not hear the testimonies. He did not review the evidence as it unfolded,” Acidre said.
“So whoever told him that there were ‘considerations’ in exchange for signatures either misled him—or he is now choosing to repeat a lie,” he added. “Either way, that claim is false.”
Acidre stressed that no inducements were offered to House members.
“No one was coerced. No one was bribed. No one was promised anything in exchange for signing,” he said.
“Members made their decision based on evidence—documents, testimonies, and financial records that raised serious and legitimate questions.”
Acidre warned that linking “For Later Release” (FLR) projects to political leverage without evidence only fuels public distrust.
“As for the suggestion that projects marked ‘For Later Release (FLR)’ can be used as leverage for votes, this is exactly the kind of baseless speculation that erodes public trust,” he said.
“We should not normalize the idea that legislative decisions are transactional without evidence.”
He also raised questions about Tiangco’s position amid narratives surrounding the impeachment process.
“Rep. Tiangco denies that he is aligned with Vice President Sara Duterte. That is his claim,” Acidre said. “But when the talking points, the timing, and the narrative all mirror the same lines being pushed to discredit the impeachment process and shield those under scrutiny, people will naturally ask questions.”
“At some point, perception follows a pattern. If it walks like it, and talks like it, people will draw their own conclusions,” he added. “Baka siya ang takot sa sariling niyang multo.”
Acidre emphasized that Tiangco bears the responsibility of providing evidence.
If Rep. Tiangco genuinely believes his claims, then it is his responsibility to provide names. Produce documents. File a sworn complaint,” he said.
“Otherwise, he should stop peddling tsismis and disinformation.”
“The Filipino people deserve facts—not fiction. They deserve truth—not insinuation. And they deserve public officials who stand on evidence, not on recycled narratives,” Acidre added.
