MANILA, Philippines — The victory of Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. in the May 2022 presidential election raised an important question about Philippine democracy: How did the son of a former president whose authoritarian rule ended with the 1986 People Power Revolution return the Marcos family to the highest office in the country?
Nearly four decades after Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. was removed from power, his son won the presidency with approximately 31.6 million votes, or 58.77 percent of the votes recorded in the official canvass. His closest rival, former Vice President Leni Robredo, received approximately 15 million votes, or 27.94 percent. The results reflected the strength of Marcos Jr.’s political organization and its ability to mobilize voters across the country. Source: Rappler’s official election results.
However, the election was about more than the contest between two presidential candidates. It also revealed deeper divisions over historical memory, political identity, family dynasties, social media, and the meaning of democracy in the Philippines.
The Political Legacy of Ferdinand Marcos Sr.
To understand the Marcos family's return to Malacañang, it is important to examine the political legacy of Ferdinand Marcos Sr., who served as president from 1965 to 1986.
In 1972, Marcos Sr. declared martial law, concentrating political power in his administration. During this period, civil liberties were restricted, political opposition was suppressed, and widespread human rights violations were documented. These included arbitrary detention, torture, enforced disappearances, and killings. His administration was also associated with corruption and the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth.
Martial law fundamentally changed the country's political landscape. Congress was shut down, opposition leaders were detained or forced into exile, and media organizations faced censorship, restrictions, and closure.
Marcos Sr.'s rule ended in 1986 following the People Power Revolution, a mass movement involving civilians, religious groups, military defectors, and political opponents. The Marcos family left the country, Corazon Aquino assumed the presidency, and the Philippines began restoring its democratic institutions.
Nevertheless, the fall of the Marcos administration did not eliminate the influence of powerful political families. Established political networks, regional loyalties, and family connections continued to shape elections across the country.
The eventual return of the Marcos family to national political prominence demonstrated that the end of an authoritarian government does not necessarily erase a political family's influence or settle public debates about its historical legacy.
Why Did Marcos Jr. Win the 2022 Election?
Several political and social factors help explain Marcos Jr.'s electoral victory. No single explanation, however, can fully account for the decisions of millions of Filipino voters.
1. The Power of Political Dynasties
Political dynasties have long played a significant role in Philippine politics. Well-established family names can provide access to campaign resources, regional organizations, local political leaders, and networks of supporters built over generations.
The Marcos family maintained a strong political base, particularly in Ilocos Norte and surrounding areas, while gradually rebuilding its national presence after returning to the Philippines. These connections helped keep the family politically relevant.
Marcos Jr. also benefited from alliances with other influential political families. His partnership with Sara Duterte, the daughter of former president Rodrigo Duterte, brought together two political groups with established support bases.
This alliance enabled the campaign to reach voters who supported the Duterte administration, as well as those who remained loyal to the Marcos family.
The election highlighted how political alliances and family networks can influence the outcome of national elections, particularly in a country where political dynasties remain prominent.
2. Historical Memory and Nostalgia
Another factor was the way voters viewed the administration of Marcos Sr.
Some supporters associated his presidency with infrastructure development, national pride, discipline, and economic progress. Others remembered the same period for authoritarian rule, human rights abuses, corruption, and the consequences of concentrating political power.
These competing interpretations became central to the 2022 election campaign.
A study published in Pacific Affairs in 2023 found that support for former president Rodrigo Duterte, positive perceptions of Marcos Sr. and martial law, and linguistic or regional identity were significant predictors of support for Marcos Jr. These findings help explain broader voting patterns, although they do not establish the motivations of every individual voter.
The disagreement over historical memory therefore became more than a debate about the past. It also influenced how voters viewed the candidates and what they expected from the country's future leadership.
3. Social Media and Political Communication
Social media platforms, including Facebook, YouTube, and TikTok, became important channels for political communication during the 2022 campaign.
Research by Freedom House documented the spread of false or misleading information, coordinated online activity, and campaigns targeting political opponents during the election period. Its reporting also described how Marcos Jr. benefited from disinformation networks, while Robredo was frequently targeted.
These findings highlight the role online platforms can play in shaping public perceptions of political candidates, historical events, and government performance.
However, social media alone cannot explain Marcos Jr.'s victory. Political alliances, campaign organization, regional identity, voter preferences, and dissatisfaction with established political groups also contributed to the outcome.
The broader concern is whether voters have access to reliable information and can distinguish documented facts from misleading political narratives.
4. The Appeal of Unity and Political Continuity
Marcos Jr.'s campaign emphasized unity, presenting his leadership as an opportunity to bring stability to a politically divided country.
For some voters, this message offered the prospect of continuity following years of political conflict, particularly during the Duterte administration. Others were dissatisfied with the political opposition or preferred the direction proposed by the Marcos campaign.
Political campaigns often gain support when their messages connect with the hopes, concerns, and frustrations of voters. In 2022, Marcos Jr.'s campaign message, political alliances, and family name helped him build a broad electoral coalition.
Still, his supporters should not be viewed as a single group with identical beliefs. Voters may support the same candidate for different reasons, including economic expectations, political loyalty, regional identity, or dissatisfaction with competing candidates.
Understanding these differences is essential to understanding the election itself.
Did the Return of the Marcos Family Signal a Weakness in Philippine Democracy?
The return of a family associated with authoritarian rule to the presidency raised difficult questions for a country that had restored democratic government following the 1986 People Power Revolution.
Some observers view the election as evidence of weaknesses in the Philippine democratic system. Political dynasties, unequal access to campaign resources, disinformation, and the influence of prominent family names can affect how voters receive and evaluate political information.
Others emphasize that Marcos Jr. won through a national election in which millions of Filipinos exercised their right to vote. From this perspective, the result reflects the importance of popular participation and the constitutional process for choosing national leaders.
These interpretations focus on different aspects of democracy, and both raise questions worth examining.
Democracy involves more than holding elections. It also depends on protecting civil liberties, maintaining an independent judiciary, ensuring government accountability, safeguarding press freedom, and allowing citizens to criticize public officials without fear of retaliation.
An election can follow established democratic procedures while still raising concerns about the quality of public debate, the fairness of political competition, and the strength of institutions responsible for checking government power.
The central issue, therefore, is not simply whether Marcos Jr. won the election or whether the Marcos family should have returned to Malacañang. It is whether the country's democratic institutions can continue to protect the rights of citizens and hold elected officials accountable, regardless of their political affiliations or family backgrounds.
Has the Philippines Become Better or Worse?
Whether the Philippines has improved or deteriorated is a question that requires more than political loyalty or personal opinion. It calls for an examination of economic conditions, public services, human rights, and the performance of government institutions.
The Economy and the Cost of Living
Economic performance can be measured through indicators such as economic growth, inflation, employment, wages, household income, poverty, and public debt.
Economic growth does not automatically mean that ordinary Filipinos are enjoying better living conditions. When the prices of food, transportation, housing, and other basic necessities rise faster than household incomes, many families may continue to struggle even when the national economy expands.
Likewise, economic difficulties cannot automatically be blamed on a single president. International developments, decisions made by previous administrations, domestic policies, and the time required for reforms to take effect must also be considered.
A meaningful assessment of the Marcos Jr. administration should therefore compare economic indicators over time and examine whether government policies have improved the living conditions of different sectors of society.
The important question is not simply whether the economy is growing, but whether Filipino families are experiencing tangible improvements in their daily lives.
Democracy and Human Rights
The state of Philippine democracy can be assessed by examining freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, political participation, due process, and the independence of public institutions.
The country's experience under martial law remains relevant because it illustrates the dangers of concentrating political power without sufficient safeguards.
At the same time, the present administration must be evaluated based on its own documented policies, decisions, and record. Historical events provide important context, but they should not automatically determine conclusions about current government performance.
Questions worth examining include whether journalists can investigate public officials freely, whether citizens can criticize government policies, whether allegations of abuse are investigated independently, and whether government agencies are held accountable under the law.
These are important measures of democratic governance, regardless of which political party or family holds the presidency.
Education, Healthcare, and Public Services
For many Filipinos, national progress is measured through everyday experiences: the quality of public education, access to healthcare, availability of decent jobs, transportation costs, infrastructure, and the affordability of food and housing.
Government announcements and completed projects provide part of the picture, but their actual impact must also be considered.
For example, constructing a public facility does not automatically mean that public services have improved. Its accessibility, operating costs, maintenance, and benefits to the intended communities are equally important.
A balanced assessment should consider both the administration's reported achievements and the problems documented by independent institutions, researchers, journalists, and affected communities.
Ultimately, the success of a government should be measured not only by its promises or projects but also by the improvements people experience in their everyday lives.
The Debate Over Historical Revisionism
One of the continuing controversies surrounding the Marcos family's return to power concerns how the martial law period is presented to younger generations.
Some supporters emphasize infrastructure projects, economic development, and what they perceive as stronger government authority during the Marcos Sr. administration. Critics argue that accounts focusing exclusively on these aspects leave out the repression, corruption, and human rights violations documented during the period.
Historical revisionism becomes a public concern when political narratives deny or distort established evidence. At the same time, legitimate historical inquiry requires examining original documents, economic data, court records, eyewitness accounts, and scholarly research.
Young Filipinos who did not personally experience martial law often learn about the period through textbooks, online videos, family discussions, and social media. The information they encounter can influence how they understand the country's political history and evaluate present-day leaders.
This makes historical education and independent fact-checking particularly important.
A democratic society should encourage people to examine and discuss its history openly. However, historical claims should be supported by credible evidence rather than accepted simply because they come from a political leader, a popular personality, or a widely shared social media post.
Understanding history does not require unquestioning loyalty to any political family. Instead, it requires a willingness to examine evidence, acknowledge documented abuses, and consider the broader consequences of past government decisions.
The Responsibility of Filipino Voters
The 2022 election also raises important questions about the role of citizens in a democratic society.
Filipino voters have different priorities. Some focus on economic opportunities, others on public safety, infrastructure, social welfare, national identity, or the performance of previous administrations. These differences are a normal part of democratic politics.
However, responsible political participation requires more than loyalty to a candidate or a family name. It involves examining policy proposals, checking factual claims, considering candidates' public records, and monitoring their performance after taking office.
Citizens also have a role in demanding transparency, questioning public spending, reporting misinformation, and participating in peaceful civic activities.
At the same time, responsibility does not rest on voters alone. Government officials, political parties, media organizations, and online platforms also have obligations to promote accurate information, transparency, and respect for democratic rights.
A healthy democracy depends on informed citizens and institutions capable of holding those in power accountable.
The Future of the Philippines Depends on More Than One President
Ferdinand Marcos Jr.'s victory in the 2022 presidential election demonstrated the continuing influence of political dynasties, historical narratives, political alliances, and modern campaign communication in the Philippines.
It also brought renewed attention to the legacy of Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and the continuing debate over the meaning of the 1986 People Power Revolution.
For some Filipinos, the Marcos family's return represented political continuity, stability, or an alternative to the established opposition. For others, it raised concerns about historical memory, human rights, political accountability, and the strength of democratic institutions.
These different perspectives reflect the complexity of Philippine politics and the varied reasons people support particular candidates.
Whether the Philippines becomes better or worse cannot be determined solely by the surname of its president. It must be assessed through measurable economic and social outcomes, the quality of public services, the protection of civil liberties, the independence of institutions, and the government's willingness to remain accountable to the people.
The country's democratic future will not be determined by one election, one political family, or one administration alone. It will also depend on the ability of citizens to participate meaningfully in public affairs, access reliable information, learn from historical evidence, and demand accountability from those who govern.
Ultimately, the debate surrounding the Marcos family's return to power is about more than one president. It is about the kind of political system Filipinos want to preserve, the lessons they draw from their history, and the standards they use to judge their leaders.
For the Philippines, the continuing challenge is to ensure that political power serves the public interest while democratic institutions remain strong enough to protect the rights and freedoms of every Filipino.
Power, Politics, and Political Rivalry: Can the Philippine President Influence Other Branches of Government?
The relationship between the presidency and the other branches of government has long been a subject of debate in Philippine politics. As tensions between the political camps associated with President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. and former President Rodrigo Duterte continue to shape public discussions, questions about presidential power, political influence, accountability, and the independence of government institutions have become increasingly important.
Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, government power is divided among three branches: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. The President leads the executive branch, Congress exercises legislative power, and the judiciary interprets and applies the law. This system of separation of powers is designed to prevent any single person or institution from exercising unlimited authority.
However, the existence of constitutional boundaries does not mean that the branches operate entirely independently of one another. In practice, political alliances, party affiliations, appointments, legislative negotiations, and institutional relationships can influence how government decisions are made. This creates an important question: How much influence can a Philippine president exercise over other branches of government without undermining the principles of checks and balances?
The President has considerable constitutional authority, including the power to implement laws, appoint certain government officials subject to applicable constitutional procedures, propose a national budget, and exercise executive powers. The President also works closely with members of Congress to advance legislative priorities. When the administration enjoys strong support in the House of Representatives or the Senate, its policy proposals may receive greater political backing. However, legislators retain their own constitutional responsibilities, and the judiciary is expected to decide cases according to the law rather than political pressure.
The debate becomes more complicated when political disagreements turn into confrontations between influential political families, competing alliances, and government officials. In Philippine politics, cooperation between political groups can change over time. Former allies may become opponents when their interests, priorities, or interpretations of public responsibility begin to differ. When these disagreements involve the presidency, impeachment proceedings, criminal investigations, congressional inquiries, or international legal issues, the consequences can extend beyond individual politicians and affect public confidence in institutions.
The political relationship between the Marcos and Duterte camps illustrates how alliances can shift and how political competition can become a major national issue. Their former alliance demonstrated the importance of political cooperation in building electoral support, while their subsequent disagreements highlighted the fragility of political partnerships. Supporters of each camp may interpret these developments differently, with some viewing them as legitimate political accountability and others questioning whether political interests are influencing government actions.
The central issue is not simply which political camp gains or loses influence. It is whether government institutions can perform their constitutional duties independently, transparently, and consistently. If decisions involving investigations, appointments, legislative proceedings, or judicial actions are perceived as serving political interests, public trust may weaken even when the decisions themselves are legally justified. For this reason, allegations of political interference should be examined through documentary evidence, established legal procedures, and verifiable facts rather than assumptions about political motives.
Another important concern is the role of Congress. Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate are elected officials with their own mandates and responsibilities. Although party affiliations and political alliances can shape legislative priorities, lawmakers must also consider constitutional requirements, public interests, and their obligations to their constituents. Congressional investigations and oversight can help hold government officials accountable, but these processes can also become controversial when political divisions dominate public interpretation of their purpose.
The judiciary faces a different but equally significant challenge. Courts must resolve disputes based on the Constitution, statutes, evidence, and applicable legal principles. Political leaders may criticize judicial decisions, challenge legal interpretations, or appoint qualified individuals through constitutionally established processes. Nevertheless, the legitimacy of judicial institutions depends on their ability to decide cases without improper interference. Public disagreement with a court ruling is part of democratic debate, but attempts to influence judicial outcomes through unlawful pressure raise serious constitutional concerns.
Ultimately, the conflict between political camps should not be understood only as a personal battle between powerful leaders. It also raises broader questions about the strength of Philippine democracy, the independence of public institutions, and the ability of citizens to distinguish political messaging from documented facts. Political rivalry can expose weaknesses in governance, but it can also distract attention from economic concerns, public services, education, healthcare, employment, and other issues that directly affect ordinary Filipinos.
The public therefore has a responsibility to examine political claims carefully, demand evidence, and hold all public officials to consistent standards. No political leader should be automatically assumed to be correct simply because of party loyalty, family affiliation, or personal popularity. Likewise, allegations against a political opponent should not be treated as established facts without credible supporting evidence.
In a democratic society, the presidency is powerful, but it is not supposed to be absolute. Congress has its own constitutional authority, and the judiciary has a distinct role in interpreting the law. The effectiveness of these safeguards depends not only on constitutional provisions but also on the conduct of public officials, the independence of institutions, the quality of public debate, and the willingness of citizens to defend accountability regardless of political affiliation.
The larger question facing the Philippines is not whether political conflict will disappear. Political disagreements are inevitable in a democracy. The more important question is whether political competition will remain within constitutional boundaries or become a struggle in which institutional independence and public accountability are placed at risk. The answer will depend on how political leaders exercise their authority, how government institutions perform their duties, and how consistently the public demands transparency, fairness, and respect for the rule of law.
Marcos and Duterte: From Political Alliance to Open Rivalry
The political relationship between the Marcos and Duterte families has undergone a dramatic transformation. What began as an electoral partnership in 2022, when Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. and Sara Duterte ran together under a unity campaign, has developed into a major political confrontation involving allegations, congressional investigations, impeachment proceedings, legal cases, and competing political interests.
The Marcos-Duterte alliance was built on the political strength of two influential families. Marcos Jr. won the presidency while Sara Duterte won the vice presidency, creating an administration that brought together supporters of two political dynasties with different histories and political bases. However, the alliance gradually weakened, and disagreements became increasingly public.
One major source of conflict involved the use of confidential and intelligence funds. Questions raised in Congress about the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education contributed to increasing tension between Duterte and administration allies. Duterte eventually resigned as education secretary in June 2024 while remaining vice president. She later accused the Marcos camp of targeting her politically, allegations that the administration has rejected.
The dispute became even more serious when Sara Duterte made public statements against Marcos and members of his family. In November 2024, she acknowledged making a statement about having Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and then-House Speaker Martin Romualdez killed if she herself were killed. The statement became part of the political and legal controversy surrounding her. Duterte has denied wrongdoing in the subsequent impeachment proceedings and has characterized the proceedings as politically motivated.
Another major issue is the case involving former President Rodrigo Duterte. He was arrested by Philippine authorities in March 2025 and surrendered to the International Criminal Court. The ICC states that its Pre-Trial Chamber confirmed three counts of crimes against humanity against him in April 2026 and committed the case to trial, with the trial scheduled to open on November 30, 2026.
The handling of Rodrigo Duterte's transfer to the ICC has also become part of the political dispute. Duterte supporters have accused the Marcos administration of facilitating his transfer, while the government has maintained its own position regarding the legal process. These competing claims illustrate how legal proceedings can become intertwined with political narratives when the people involved belong to rival political camps.
The conflict has also moved into Congress. Sara Duterte has faced impeachment proceedings, and her impeachment trial in the Senate began in July 2026. The prosecution has accused her of, among other things, misuse of public funds and threats against the President, while Duterte's defense has rejected the accusations and argued that the proceedings are politically motivated. A conviction in the Senate requires at least 16 of the 24 senators.
The Supreme Court has also become part of the institutional landscape surrounding the dispute. In August 2026, the Court dismissed petitions challenging aspects of the House impeachment proceedings on the ground that the issues had become moot after the House had already approved and transmitted the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.
This is where the larger debate about Philippine democracy becomes important. The disagreement is not simply a personal conflict between Marcos and Duterte. It involves the relationship between the presidency, Congress, the courts, political parties, political families, and government institutions.
Critics of the Marcos administration argue that government institutions and political allies are being used against the Duterte camp. On the other hand, supporters of the administration argue that investigations and impeachment proceedings are legitimate mechanisms of accountability and should not automatically be dismissed as political persecution. Duterte supporters similarly argue that the cases against her and her family must be examined in the context of the political rivalry between the two camps. These are competing political interpretations, and distinguishing allegations from established facts is essential.
The conflict also demonstrates how political alliances in the Philippines can change rapidly. Political partnerships formed during elections do not necessarily guarantee long-term cooperation once elected officials face different priorities, personalities, constituencies, and ambitions. The Marcos-Duterte relationship is therefore an example of how an alliance can evolve into political competition within the same national government.
The rivalry has also affected discussions about the country's political future. Because Marcos Jr. is constitutionally limited to a single six-year presidential term, the political landscape after his administration has become an important consideration for both camps. Sara Duterte has expressed presidential ambitions for 2028, while the Marcos camp and its allies are also expected to remain influential in determining the direction of national politics.
For the public, the central issue is not simply which family is stronger or which political camp should be supported. The more fundamental questions concern evidence, constitutional limits, institutional independence, transparency, and accountability. Allegations should be tested through legal and investigative processes, while government institutions should be able to perform their constitutional functions regardless of which political family is involved.
The Marcos-Duterte conflict therefore represents more than a disagreement between two powerful families. It is also a continuing debate over how political power is exercised in the Philippines, how institutions respond when political alliances collapse, and whether democratic checks and balances can remain effective during periods of intense political rivalry.
As the conflict continues, Filipinos will continue to encounter competing narratives from both sides. The responsibility of the public, journalists, and institutions is to distinguish documented facts from allegations, political statements from established findings, and legitimate political disagreement from claims that require further evidence. In a democracy, political rivalry is unavoidable; what matters is whether disputes remain subject to the Constitution, the law, and accountable institutions.