The inscrutable Marcos
Ferdinand Marcos Jr. may be one of the most misread presidents in recent Philippine history. This is not because he is brilliant in the obvious way, or charismatic in the theatrical way, or forceful in the Duterte way. In fact, much of the confusion comes from the opposite. Marcos Jr. is often quiet, understated, evasive, and difficult to pin down. He does not usually speak like a strongman. He does not always fight in the open. He rarely displays rage as a political performance.
And precisely because of that, many Filipinos have underestimated him. His critics first thought he would be a simple copy of his father: authoritarian, heavy-handed, openly coercive, eager to rehabilitate martial law not only in memory but in method. That fear was understandable. The Marcos name carries the burden of dictatorship, plunder, repression, and historical distortion. No serious democrat should forget that.
But the President we have seen so far has not ruled as a direct reincarnation of Ferdinand Marcos Sr. He has not declared martial law. He has not governed through naked terror. He has allowed democratic space to continue, however imperfectly. On foreign policy, especially the West Philippine Sea, he has taken positions that many opposition figures find defensible, even admirable. Some who once saw him only as the heir of authoritarianism now see him as a useful defender of sovereignty against China.
But his allies have misread him too. Vice President Sara Duterte and the Duterte camp appeared to believe that the UniTeam alliance was a bargain of equals, perhaps even a temporary vehicle that would eventually deliver national power back to the Dutertes in 2028. They helped Marcos win in 2022. They brought machinery, regional force, and the aura of Duterte populism. But they may have mistaken electoral partnership for permanent protection.
Marcos did not remain trapped inside that bargain. As the Dutertes became more aggressive, he did not respond with open fury. He allowed institutions, allies, budgets, investigations, and political distance to do the work. The result is that VP Sara, once the indispensable partner, is now the central rival.
His sister Imee may have misread him as well. She behaves like a guardian of the older Marcos’ emotional universe: combative, theatrical, resentful, and comfortable with Duterte proximity. But her brother seems to be pursuing a different political image: less openly vengeful, more internationally respectable, more institutional in tone. Imee may think she is protecting the family legacy. But to Marcos Jr., she may be an albatross—useful to the base, dangerous to the brand.
Then there is former Speaker Martin Romualdez. For a time, Romualdez seemed to embody the perfect dynastic instrument: cousin, Speaker, coalition manager, legislative operator, possible 2028 administration-side option. He stood near the center of power. He helped hold the House. He was useful.
But usefulness is not immunity. Now that the flood-control corruption scandal has moved toward him, Romualdez appears close to being sacrificed. Whether he is guilty or innocent must be determined by due process. But politically, his predicament teaches a brutal lesson: Marcos may tolerate allies while they strengthen him, but he may also let them fall when they threaten to drag him down.
This is where Filipino critical thinking must begin. We are too lazy with political labels. We say “Marcos” and assume one thing. We say “Duterte” and assume another. We divide politics into heroes and villains, yellows and reds, loyalists and critics, patriots and traitors. But power is rarely that simple.
A leader can be dynastic and still defend national sovereignty. A president can take defensible positions on the West Philippine Sea while presiding over elite impunity at home. A rival can be dangerous even when raising valid criticisms. An ally can be useful until he becomes disposable.
Marcos Jr. is not redeemed. Neither is he simply his father reborn. That makes him harder to oppose—and harder to trust. The citizen’s task is not to love or hate him blindly. It is to read him accurately. When he distances himself from VP Sara, is he defending democracy or eliminating a rival? When Romualdez is allowed to weaken, is this accountability or damage control? When Marcos stands up to China, is it principle, strategy, survival, or all three?
Filipino democracy will mature only when citizens become harder to fool—not only by loud strongmen, but also by quiet survivors. And Marcos Jr. is testing whether we can still think beyond slogans.
—————-
doyromero@gmail.com
