A Tale of Two Power Struggles:
Impeachement calls, a frustrated EDSA Redux,
and the Desperation for Power
In the swirling vortex of Philippine politics, nothing seems to surprise anymore. The latest fervor surrounding Vice President Sara Duterte, amid controversies threatening her position and that of her office, reflects an ironic desperation from her loyalists to shield her from criticism and even the specter of impeachment.
Recent events, from impassioned comments across social media platforms to the mobilization at the EDSA Shrine, highlight a movement not rooted in principled opposition to the Marcos administration but rather in blatant allegiance to the Duterte brand. These diehard supporters, who vociferously chant anti-Marcos slogans, seek to replace President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. with Sara Duterte under the guise of a righteous cause.
This strategy lays bare the extent of their opportunism. Once deriding the concept of a “people power” uprising, they now paradoxically co-opt it to serve their own agenda. The irony is made sharper by former President Rodrigo Duterte himself, who, in a biting critique of Marcos Jr., lamented the Philippines’ “fractured governance” and hinted that only military intervention could “correct” the situation. He did not mince words, calling the current president a “drug addict” – a sharp jab that echoes the tough-on-drugs rhetoric of his own administration.
Calls for impeachment against Vice President Duterte have also begun to gather steam. Concerned legislators and civil society groups have filed impeachment complaints, citing her alleged betrayal of public trust. Among the specific charges are her office’s controversial use of ₱612 million in confidential funds from 2022 to 2023—an issue that continues to inflame public sentiment.
Yet, despite its vocal criticism of Duterte’s tirades, Malacañang has carefully distanced itself from the impeachment cases. President Marcos Jr. himself admitted advising lawmakers to avoid pursuing impeachment, urging them instead to focus on pressing national issues. This calculated move signals his intent to “save the center,” even as cracks in the alliance with Duterte deepen.
Nonetheless, impeachment calls remain “fresh” and driven by substantive allegations compared to the desperate defenses mounted by Duterte’s supporters—ranging from political allies in Congress to social media operatives parroting her talking points. Their attempts to shield her from scrutiny only underscore the stark contrast between genuine accountability and blind loyalty.
Otherwise, from these supporters of the other side, where is their supposed “bolo-wielding” spirit, the same one that captured the imagination of the public in the bloody “Alsa Masa” narratives that they once glorified? They claim their movement is a “call of the brave,” yet they fail to wield the same daring energy that right-wing movements, like Trump’s MAGA, mustered during the Capitol siege. Instead, they cry “rule of law,” a sudden reverence that rings hollow given the legacy of extrajudicial acts, plunder, and mass murder that their leaders have left behind.
One cannot help but quote Engels in this absurdity: “When others cry savagely ‘down with the kings,’ Stirner immediately supplements ‘down with the laws also.’”
It is a bitter irony to witness these movements claiming the banner of bravery while offering nothing but bullshitries. Neither the Marcoses nor the Dutertes can escape the criticism of a concerned public fed up with misuse of funds, corrupt personages, and the failure to address pressing social issues.
If this duo is desperately trying to “save the center,” then it is not surprising that the people, exercising their right to revolt, might take the center from them. After all, why should the public remain content with both sides of the same coin?
This unfolding drama is yet another testament to how the battle for power in the Philippines is less about governance and more about perpetuating dynastic rule. It serves as a stark reminder that political loyalties often override national interest, leaving the Filipino people caught in the crossfire of ambition and greed.
One cannot help but quote Engels in this absurdity: “When others cry savagely ‘down with the kings,’ Stirner immediately supplements ‘down with the laws also.’”
It is a bitter irony to witness these movements claiming the banner of bravery while offering nothing but bullshitries. Neither the Marcoses nor the Dutertes can escape the criticism of a concerned public fed up with misuse of funds, corrupt personages, and the failure to address pressing social issues.
If this duo is desperately trying to “save the center,” then it is not surprising that the people, exercising their right to revolt, might take the center from them. After all, why should the public remain content with both sides of the same coin?
This unfolding drama is yet another testament to how the battle for power in the Philippines is less about governance and more about perpetuating dynastic rule. It serves as a stark reminder that political loyalties often override national interest, leaving the Filipino people caught in the crossfire of ambition and greed.