The first week of the mid-term election campaign in the Philippines has been marked by a vicious exchange of words between President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and former President Rodrigo Duterte.
Marcos minced no words in highlighting the notorious legacy of his predecessor when he introduced the senatorial candidates endorsed by his coalition. He claimed that his candidates have no blood on their hands in the brutal enforcement of the campaign against illegal drugs, which obviously alluded to the high number of drug-related killings under the Duterte presidency. He added that his candidates were not involved in the corrupt and incompetent handling of the pandemic crisis. He also boasted that his candidates are not promoting the vested interests of China.
A translated excerpt of his speech exhorted voters to reject Duterte’s brand of politics. “As a people with dignity, diligence, and intelligence, are we willing to return to the time when our leaders wanted us to be a province of China?” he asked. “Will we go back to the past when our country was pimped as a den of gambling for foreigners?”
A few days later, Duterte hit back by repeating his accusation that Marcos is a heroin user. He also warned about rising dissatisfaction because the government failed to bring down the prices of goods. He called out Marcos for his unfulfilled promises when he ran for president in 2022. His son, Davao City Mayor Sebastian Duterte, cited the People Power uprising which deposed the Marcos dictatorship in 1986. “As we strive toward a progressive future, the administration of Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is pulling us back into an abusive and oppressive government,” he said in his speech, proclaiming the candidates supported by the Duterte-led party.
There’s nothing unusual with politicians dissing their rivals, but Marcos and Duterte supported each other and even formed a “unity” government in 2022. Marcos’ running mate was Vice President Sara Duterte, daughter of the former president. After the alliance collapsed, Duterte resigned her Cabinet post in June 2024. Marcos’ allies were among those who signed the recent impeachment complaint against the vice president.
The mid-term election is therefore the first electoral face-off between erstwhile allies in the ruling coalition, aside from providing a glimpse of the main contenders in the 2028 presidential election.
The sensational words uttered by both Marcos and Duterte were probably meant to frame the topics to be debated during the campaign period, and persuade voters to think and vote based on these issues.
But the Marcos and Duterte camps are wrong to assume that voters have no real choice beyond these two powerful feuding clans. The opposition should take this opportunity to present itself as a viable alternative that is ready to pursue accountability from both Marcos and Duterte.
For example, opposition candidates can chide Marcos for his hypocritical remarks against Duterte. The “war on drugs” was simply renamed under the Marcos administration and extrajudicial killings persist to this day. Duterte pivoted closer to China in the same way that Marcos fostered closer ties with the United States government. Both presidents can be accused of promoting the geopolitical agenda of foreign powers, with Marcos even dangling the country’s patrimony in order to attract foreign investments.
On the other hand, the opposition can point out the opportunistic behavior of the Dutertes, who are desperately seeking to ignore the clamor for accountability over the grave human rights abuses and high-level corruption of the previous administration. They are also maneuvering to stop the Senate conviction of Vice President Duterte after being impeached by the House of Representatives. Former President Duterte’s verbal spat with Marcos should not distract the ongoing initiative to prosecute him in the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity.
The challenge for the opposition is not just to expose the self-serving motives of Marcos and Duterte but to articulate the everyday economic concerns of ordinary citizens. More importantly, opposition groups should prove that they offer a better model of governance and are determined to exact accountability from erring officials.