By Herman M. Lagon
Once allies in the 2022 elections, the continuous conflict between the Marcos and Duterte dynasties has become an unsettling show that both fascinates and irritates the Filipino people. What the voters [at least the 31 million of them] bought—a union of strong political forces supposedly for the good of the country—has now turned into a public spat rife with finger-pointing, threats, and personal attacks. Those who voted for “unity” would not lose any irony in their alliance disintegrating into such sharp telenovela-like conflict. Nevertheless, in all its turmoil, this conflict could unintentionally help the ordinary Filipino by making us face political power realities and hold those in charge more responsible.
Sara Duterte exposes a degree of hypocrisy in both camps by targeted attacks on Ferdinand Marcos Jr., including her infamous threat to exhume Marcos Sr.’s remains. At least on Duterte’s side, the conflict seems to be a ploy to deflect criticism of her own shortcomings and scandals—including charges of incompetence in her roles as Vice President and (former) Secretary of the Department of Education (DepEd). She deflects the cries of public money wasted and power abuse, and changes the focus by criticizing Marcos. However, this approach also invites more criticism of her leadership and begs doubts among voters about the actual motives behind her public outbursts.
For Filipino voters, this conflict offers much-needed introspection. Now exposed as hollow rhetoric are Duterte and Marcos’ promises of unity, development, transparency, and accountability for 2022. The nation is still struggling with political strife, economic woes, learning crises, and claims of poor governance almost three years into the terms of each respective leader. We are left to question whether the unity they promised during the campaign was ever real or if it was merely a catchphrase meant to get votes as they threw spicy punches against each other two years later. The very public character of this conflict drives their supporters to consider why they first voted for them and whether they would make the same decision in 2025.
Furthermore, this conflict has revealed the extreme incompetence and governance flaws between the camps. While Duterte is shown as erratic and unstable, particularly with her so-called “prima donna” approach toward governance, Marcos Jr. is shown, to the least by the Dutertes and their cohorts, as a president devoid of leadership qualities. Long voiced by the real opposition, these grievances are now being confirmed by the very same people who used to be buttering each other up and singing each other’s praises. Now, the voters—especially those who support these pseudo-leaders—have to face the results of their decisions. If anything, this conflict supports the opposition’s worries by stressing the need for wisdom in the next elections.
The conflict also unintentionally benefits the genuine opposition in the House and Senate. The dirty laundry between Duterte and Marcos creates chances for the truth to emerge. Now opposing one another, the two political giants are currently exposing and will continue to expose the skeletons buried in their separate closets. This could result in more transparency since their attempts to discredit one another could unintentionally reveal the corruption and incompetence critics long suspected. This degree of transparency—even if accidental—can help the nation’s quest for truth and justice in a political environment too often veiled in cloak-and-dagger with deception, fraud, and misdirection.
More fascinating still is how this conflict is changing political dynamics ahead of the 2025 midterm elections. With the Marcos-Duterte alliance virtually destroyed, new political alignments are starting to show up, providing voters with more options–with few exceptions like the case of the fickle Treñas-Baronda ‘pact’ in Iloilo City. The voters might now have the chance to support fresh ideas, new faces, and more capable leaders instead of depending on the binary choice between two political overlords. This lets voters escape the hold of political dynasties that have long dominated the national and local governments, opening the path for much-needed reform in the political system.
This political episode also reminds us soberingly of the perils associated with political dynasties. Families like the Marcoses and Dutertes have held tight influence for decades, often passing on leadership roles from one generation to the next, regardless of merit; their present public diatribes and charades emphasize how flimsy these alliances can be and how personal grudges might eclipse the actual demand for public service. The conflict emphasizes the inherent issue of letting a small number of families rule the political scene and reminds us that power vested in dynastic hands usually produces a government motivated by personal interests rather than the common good.
Simultaneously, the conflict is driving a discussion of more extensive political accountability. Since both sides are now attacking one another, the public is focusing more on their particular track records in office. This degree of scrutiny is a good thing for Philippine politics, where political leaders sometimes operate free from the full weight of public opinion. Now, Duterte and Marcos are held to a higher standard since their dirty laundry is visible to everyone. This could cause voters to evaluate future leaders differently. Thus, competence and responsibility become more critical determinants of electoral choices.
Fascinatingly, Duterte’s erratic actions over the conflict have also started a fresh political debate on mental health. Her public outbursts—especially her odd threats—have sparked questions about political leaders’ emotional and psychological fit. Although this may seem like a minor issue in the big picture of government, it is a major change. For too long, the psychological health of those in authority has been overlooked, as if their well-being is less important, risking both their health and the quality of their leadership. Though concerning, Duterte’s antics unintentionally highlight this crucial component of leadership, fostering future conversations on the mental stresses and strains public officials experience.
Ultimately, even if, at first glance, the Marcos-Duterte conflict seems to be a diversion from more urgent national concerns, it could give us an unexpected advantage: the opportunity to evaluate their leaders and make wise decisions going forward. The revelation of political and personal divisions among their ranks strongly reminds us that unity cannot be based on weak foundations and that good leadership calls for more than words. It calls for capability, integrity, accountability, proficiency, and a sincere dedication to public service.
Looking ahead, this conflict is likely the impetus for a long-overdue reckoning in our country’s brand of politics. It reminds us that dynastic politics, with few exceptions, is fundamentally flawed and that the time has come for voters to seek out leaders who prioritize the people over their own family legacies. The silver lining in this dynastic feud is that it allows ordinary Filipinos to see the stark truth, demand more from their leaders, hold them accountable, and make informed choices at the polls.
***
Doc H fondly describes himself as a ‘student of and for life’ who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world that is grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views herewith do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with.
