December 2, 2024
Manila – We’ve become so accustomed to seeing spouses and siblings from the same family dominating our political system that we often think of the government itself as a family and its top officials as the parents of the nation. This view makes it uncomfortable to see a public spat between the president and vice president. Their public feuds, personal accusations and threats make us uncomfortable. Our instinct is to urge reconciliation for the sake of national unity.
Nothing could be more naive and misguided, especially in a society striving to modernize. The government is not a home. The Philippine Constitution defines the country as a democracy with power divided into three equal branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. While these branches are expected to cooperate, a key aspect of their functions is checks and balances.
In addition to this structure, modern political systems also rely on periodic elections in which rival parties compete for power. Political power is not inherited but gained through the electoral process. The person who wins the most votes forms the government. Such a plan would not render the opposition powerless. Beyond elections, its role is to hold governments to account, criticize their policies and offer alternatives.
Therefore, conflicts and debates among leaders are normal and necessary in modern political systems. What we should worry about is the lack of dissent among those in power, or the prevailing climate of uncritical consensus. Violent opposition and open disagreement are hallmarks of a healthy democracy. Looking back, one wishes more lawmakers, judges and top civil servants had been brave enough to condemn the atrocities of the government under former President Rodrigo Duterte. But as we have seen, their silence or timidity makes them unwitting enablers of corrupt and oppressive regimes.
This backdrop frames the public conflict between Vice President Sara Duterte and President Bongbong Marcos. How do we respond to bitter disagreements between former allies? If we agree with their “UniTeam” alliance for the 2022 elections, we might urge them to reconcile. But this rift is less troubling if we reject the continuation of Duterte’s toxic legacy. In fact, this is a political development that we should welcome.
The Marcos-Duterte alliance was from the beginning a marriage of convenience, not a partnership based on shared ideals or a coherent national vision. Their cooperation was entirely pragmatic—a strategy to advance personal political goals. For Mr. Marcos, the partnership was particularly beneficial. After losing the vice-presidential race to Leni Robredo in 2016, his presidential bid in 2022 clearly depends on Sara Duterte’s support, or at least on her Promise not to run for president. Whether the arrangement is formalized through a written agreement or governed by informal understandings about campaign finance, joint rallies, or power-sharing in the event of victory, any perceived betrayal is of no concern to the public.
What matters now is the impact. The collapse of the alliance opens the door for a congressional investigation into the controversies surrounding past Duterte administrations. These hearings revealed key issues including human rights violations, anti-drug campaigns, police corruption, death squads, offshore gaming syndicates, manipulation of local government units and misuse of public funds. They also revealed the opaque use of classified and intelligence funds by agencies such as the Vice President’s Office.
Additionally, these investigations reveal how political favoritism undermines budget scrutiny and how civil servants are vulnerable to political pressure. None of this would be possible if the Marcos-Duterte alliance remained intact.
Government is not a family and should not be run like one. We don’t get to choose our parents, and we may feel the need to keep them together for the sake of stability. But in a democracy, we elect our leaders and hold them accountable. Countries benefit when leaders openly debate, debate policy, and expose each other’s shortcomings. Silence and unbridled harmony are more destructive than passionate dissent.
