Uncovering the Marcos siblings’ conflict: A case study
(First of two parts)
How does a sibling rivalry escalate when power enters the family?
Sibling rivalry is not a childhood problem. It is a governance failure—one that simply waits for power, position or legacy to expose it.
The visible tensions between President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. and Sen. Imee Marcos offer a rare public window into a type of conflict that family governance advisors across Asia encounter regularly, though usually behind closed doors. This is not political commentary, nor is it an assessment of policy positions. It is a family governance case study unfolding in full public view.
What makes this situation instructive is not the prominence of the family, but its familiarity. Strip away the spotlight and the same dynamics appear in family enterprises, boardrooms, foundations and holding companies across the region.
Sibling conflict rarely begins with ideology or public disagreement. It begins much earlier, with unresolved emotional contracts formed in childhood and adolescence. Who was listened to more? Who was trusted with responsibility? Who was protected—and who was expected to endure? These questions are rarely voiced, but they are remembered with remarkable clarity.
In many Asian families, birth order creates invisible expectations. Elders often carry a sense of moral authority rooted in seniority and sacrifice. Younger siblings may later acquire formal power through succession, education or public validation. When these roles are never explicitly clarified, siblings grow up carrying competing entitlements—one emotional, one positional. Eventually, those entitlements collide.
Parents rarely intend to create rivalry. Most believe harmony will naturally follow blood ties. Others avoid difficult conversations in the hope of preserving peace. Some assume their children will “figure it out” once they are gone. Yet parental silence does not produce unity. It produces ambiguity—and ambiguity produces rivalry.
When parents step back without defining roles, boundaries and decision rights, siblings inherit unfinished negotiations. Authority becomes unclear, respect becomes contested and every major decision carries emotional weight. Power then becomes the arena where long-standing grievances are finally fought.
Whether the setting is politics or business, the pattern is the same. Where power is transferred without governance, disruption is inevitable. In political families, the fallout is highly visible—fractured alliances, public disagreement and institutional strain. In business families, the damage is often quieter but no less destructive—splintered boards, stalled decisions, erosion of trust and loss of enterprise value.
The environment may differ, but the risks do not. Family conflict behaves the same way across domains. Blood ties do not protect institutions. Governance does.
Sibling rivalry becomes particularly destructive when three forces converge.
First, unequal power. When one sibling holds formal authority and another retains influence, seniority or symbolic capital, parallel power centers emerge. Decisions are no longer judged on merit alone; they are interpreted as personal victories or defeats.
Second, in-laws and inner circles. In Asia, spouses and advisers rarely remain neutral observers. Loyalty naturally shifts from the sibling unit to the nuclear family. Even well-intentioned advice can be perceived as intrusion. In-laws are seldom the root cause of conflict, but they are powerful accelerants.
Third, public exposure. Once conflict becomes visible, pride hardens. Silence turns strategic. Reconciliation begins to look like surrender. At this stage, winning matters more than repairing and escalation becomes almost inevitable.
What many families underestimate is that unmanaged sibling conflict never remains “personal.” Its consequences are predictable and severe: permanent relationship rupture, factionalized advisers and allies, decision paralysis, erosion of legacy and children inheriting unfinished wars. What one generation refuses to resolve, the next inherits—with interest.
The Marcos siblings are not unique. They are simply visible. Across Asia, business-owning families, political clans and legacy families face the same risks. Sibling unity is not automatic; it must be designed. Succession without governance is an invitation to conflict. In-laws must be acknowledged, not ignored. Silence is not peace; it is merely a delay of conflict.
If siblings cannot sit at the same table with clear roles, agreed boundaries and rules of engagement, no board, constitution or trust will save the family.
Part 2 will examine the parents’ blind spot—and what founders and elders must do to prevent sibling rivalry from turning into generational damage.
(To be continued.)
The author is a family governance advisor based in Asia, working with multigenerational families on succession, sibling dynamics and governance structures designed to protect both relationships and long-term legacy. He has been selected to serve as a mentor for the Singapore Institute of Directors Board Readiness Program, supporting professionals and family members aspiring to sit on Boards, particularly in contexts where family dynamics, ownership and authority intersect.
