1 day ago
2
The Marcos-Duterte rivalry is more than just a clash of political dynasties; it reflects a broader effort to reshape the Philippines’ relationship with liberal democratic norms.
Duterte’s populist government openly rejected these values, but the Marcos administration’s cooperation with the International Criminal Court (ICC) underpins policy shifts that has important domestic and foreign policy implications.
By cooperating with the ICC despite the country’s withdrawal in 2019, the Marcos government appears committed to rebuilding the Philippines’ image as a responsible member of the international community. Indeed, Duterte’s downfall marks the end of the country’s brief attempt to challenge and unravel the country’s democratic tradition rooted in Western liberal norms. As Asia’s oldest democracy, the Philippines under Marcos Jr. seems intent on reclaiming that legacy.
Duterte was arrested and brought to the Hague in relation to an ICC investigation alleging that the former president has committed crimes against humanity. His crackdown on illegal drugs, which was the main legacy of his six-year tenure from 2016 to 2022, saw at most 30,000 victims both from police operations and vigilante-style killings.
Politics as protection
To avoid prosecution, while also hedging his future on a political ally that would have continued to protect him, Duterte unilaterally withdrew the Philippines from the ICC in 2019. This was indeed one of the more pressing rationale for the Duterte family’s decision to support Marcos’ bid for presidency in 2022, with presidential daughter and then-Davao mayor Sara Duterte running as his vice president.
But as recent events have shown, the so-called Uniteam — the powerhouse alliance formed during the 2022 presidential campaign — was short-lived. After their overwhelming victory against their opponents, the Marcos-Duterte breakup came as a surprise, with the Marcos administration ultimately declaring open season on the Dutertes.
It started with Vice President Sara Duterte’s resignation as education secretary under the Marcos Cabinet, which then saw high-profile congressional investigations on widespread corruption allegations together with unexplainable priorities within the agency under her leadership. In February of this year, the Vice President was impeached by the lower house of the Philippine Congress, after openly calling for the assassination of the President amid weighty allegations of graft and corruption.
This unfolding saga between the country’s two major political families are indeed a reflection of how long-term political interests trump electoral alliances and with it, promises of “unity” and “continuity” forged largely out of convenience. And at the crux of this rivalry are competing legacies and aspirations for the country’s position within the international community. Duterte’s sudden detention at the Hague is indeed a fitting example of this phenomenon.
Clashing worldviews
Populist Duterte viewed the liberal global order under Pax Americana suffering from great power hypocrisy, an American hegemon imposes rules upon the weak while exempting itself from those same standards. He personally took offense when Western nations invoke human rights concerns against his “war on drugs” campaign while the same critics, the US in particular, are selective in their application of related international agreements.
Marcos, for his part, vowed to actively engage on human rights issues, embracing liberal democratic values as key to the Philippines’ goal of achieving greater economic prosperity. For Marcos, being a responsible member of the international community means upholding the liberal democratic values of promoting the rule of law and upholding a human rights based approach in addressing crime — commitments that his predecessor has openly disregarded.
Indeed, a clear difference exists between the two presidents with respect to their commitments to the global project of preserving liberal democracy. Such difference in commitments precedes the break-up of the Marcos-Duterte Uniteam. This adds a normative and international dimension to the power struggle between major political dynasties in the Philippines, now unfolding as former President Duterte faces his downfall at the hands of the ICC, an institution he openly vilified during his presidency.
The Marcos administration created the necessary conditions for the ICC and the International Criminal Police Organization to act on the case against the former president. For Marcos Jr., Duterte’s arrest — despite the Philippines’ withdrawal from the ICC in 2019 — is presented as a responsible move by a member of the community of nations to uphold the rule of law and cooperate with international law enforcement. Ultimately, his embrace of liberal democratic values and processes enabled him to deliver a decisive blow to his political rival.
Implications for foreign policy
The unravelling of this dynastic rivalry, represented by their differing normative commitments first and foremost, also has important foreign policy implications for a country caught between great power competition.
Duterte’s arrest does not only push the Duterte camp further into a defensive position, but it also casts a shadow of doubt on the legacy of the former president particularly his highly controversial yet popular anti-drugs campaign. It certainly does not help that Sara Duterte is poised to become the first vice president to be impeached under strong allegations of graft and corruption, which she has not convincingly refuted.
The Dutertes’ collective prospect for a future electoral victory is also in grave danger. The former president is running for mayor of Davao city, the Dutertes’ bailiwick. Yet his bid to regain control and influence in his old stronghold is now in limbo, especially with the international court’s impending trial for his crimes against humanity. Meanwhile, the Marcos administration is also bent on supporting the impeachment against Sara Duterte, which would perpetually bar her to run for higher office.
With the pendulum drastically shifting towards a weakening of the Duterte family’s influence, we can foresee lesser chances of seeing a China (re)pivot in the near future, nor an attempt to gradually foster warm relations conducive for building mutual trust. It is now becoming more likely that Duterte’s constructive engagement with China as it loosened its assertive grip on the country’s territorial rights, was indeed a rare attempt at appeasement for the Philippines.
Public perception of this experiment is largely dismal given unfulfilled promises and the failure to see a significant easing of tensions in the last administratoin. Unfortunate as it is, this ‘lesson learned’ acts as an effective constraint on the Marcos government, and those that will come after it, in terms of the recalibrating the country’s China policy. This will likely lead to prolonged years of rising tensions with our most consequential neighbor.
Duterte’s arrest removes a key obstacle in the Marcos administration’s broader liberal agenda. Marcos’ push to play a more active role in strengthening the liberal international order — evidenced by his support for the ICC’s prosecution of Duterte — reflects his commitment to a rules-based order, particularly in countering China’s claims in contested waters.
The strengthening of liberal democratic convictions in the Philippines further narrows the space for building mutual trust with China. Guided by increasingly divergent values, Marcos continues to steer the Philippines away from Beijing and toward closer alignment with Western democratic norms and institutions.
This widening ideological gap complicates efforts to build stable and cooperative ties with Beijing, whose governance model and strategic interests are themselves often challenged by these values.
The challenge now for the Philippines is to stay committed to engaging China in productive dialogue that acknowledges both sides’ interests and seeks compromise where possible, despite fundamental normative differences. This is no small task, yet it’s the path the current government has chosen.
Securing the momentum
Recent events have indeed presented itself as an opportunity for the Marcos administration to stay true to its commitment of being a responsible member of the community of nations. However, skepticism toward this claim is warranted, given the lack of serious effort by the current government to pursue reaffiliation with the ICC.
Indeed, to stay true to the current official narrative that the Philippines is no pawn to any superpower, and that it has an active agency and stake at strengthening a rules-based order, it is in its best interest to join hands with other like-minded nations in support of this global agenda.
Likewise, the Vice President’s impeachment trial in July risks fueling political instability, which could further weaken the country’s already fragile economic performance. Rather than focusing solely on securing political gains, the administration, which prides itself on upholding liberal democratic values on the global stage, must ensure that accountability and the fight against corruption remain the trial’s central goals.
Civil society and the media, both benefiting from a more open democratic space under this administration, will play a crucial role in holding the process to these higher standards. – Rappler.com
Enrico V. Gloria is an Assistant Professor of International Relations (on study leave ) at the University of the Philippines, Diliman and a Ph.D. candidate at the Department of International Relations at Tsinghua University. He writes about China’s rise, the bilateral relationship between China and the Philippines, as well as their respective foreign policies. His research has appeared in The Pacific Review, Philippine Political Science Journal, Chinese Studies Journal, and the Journal of Contemporary China, among others.
