Neither Marcos Nor Duterte: Only the Conscienced Must Decide
The recent debates surrounding the International Criminal Court’s move against Duterte have reignited the long-standing divide between his supporters and detractors. On one side, his loyalists passionately defend his so-called “legacy,” treating his governance as though it were a patron’s generosity rather than the duty of a civil servant. On the other, those who once tolerated him now shift toward his former ally, replacing one personality cult with another, favoring the Marcosian narrative in a desperate attempt to erase Duterte’s influence.
Yet, those who have been critical from the beginning—those driven not by partisanship but by genuine concern for the country—see through this spectacle. They recognize that the controversies, abuses, and impunity of his regime vastly outweigh whatever infrastructure, policies, or reforms his supporters banner. A longer passport validity, a cleaner Manila Bay, and rehabilitated infrastructure may be noted, but they cannot serve as a counterweight to the bloodied history of extrajudicial killings, threats against dissenters, and the erosion of democratic institutions.
The Feud of Two Tyrants
At its core, this conflict is not about principles—it is about consolidating power. Both Marcos and Duterte claim to be against the oligarchy, yet they are deeply entrenched within it, funded by the same powerful elite they pretend to oppose. Karl Marx famously wrote in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.”
The Philippines today is not simply under the rule of Marcos or Duterte—it remains trapped in a system of elite domination that long predates them. Their supposed opposition to one another is, in truth, a power struggle between factions of the same ruling class, between those who swear loyalty to different patrons but ultimately serve the same interests. It is a feud not between justice and tyranny, but between two tyrants who seek to preserve their grip on power.
Duterte’s defenders argue that he brought progress, but this claim is a mirage. Apolinario Mabini, in La Revolución Filipina, wrote, “The revolution has not yet succeeded because those who should serve the country are thinking of serving only themselves.” Indeed, while Duterte’s administration showcased some visible developments, they served as tools of political patronage rather than true systemic change. What use is a well-paved road if it leads to a nation still under the rule of landlords, warlords, and oligarchs? What is the point of modern infrastructure if the very institutions that guarantee justice and human rights are crumbling?
The Reality Beyond Their Narratives
If one may ask: those who are truly concerned have long seen the reality—some even critically supported either Marcos or Duterte at certain points, only to later reject them when their betrayals became clear. Those who are driven by genuine concern do not simply praise nor dismiss policies based on personality but instead weigh them against the broader conditions of justice and governance.
But what has this so-called “new Philippines” under Duterte or Marcos brought? The same ruling elite remains. The same system of oppression persists. The same cycle of deception continues. Their supporters, blind to the larger historical forces at play, treat their chosen leader as a messianic figure, refusing to acknowledge that both factions ultimately serve the same class interests.
Max Stirner once wrote in The Ego and Its Own, “The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime.” This statement rings especially true for Duterte’s regime. Under his rule, extrajudicial killings were justified under the guise of “peace and order,” while those who resisted—activists, journalists, and even ordinary citizens—were branded as criminals. Yet, those who pulled the triggers, those who orchestrated the bloodshed, those who silenced dissent, were never held accountable. The same principle applies to the Marcoses, whose historical crimes are now being rewritten as achievements, their return to power justified under the banner of national unity.
The True Opposition Lies Elsewhere
Amidst this chaos, the real opposition is neither Duterte’s critics-turned-Marcos loyalists nor Marcos’ revisionists-turned-Duterte critics. The real opposition lies with those who see beyond the illusion, who refuse to be forced into choosing between two faces of the same decaying system.
Apolinario Mabini once wrote, “He who desires to be served instead of serve, to command instead of obey, belongs to the enemy.” Both Marcos and Duterte have built their rule on the expectation of servitude—whether from their political allies, bureaucrats, or the people themselves. They demand loyalty not to the country, but to their own political dynasties. Governance, in their eyes, is not an act of public service but an assertion of power, turning the nation into a personal fiefdom where the people are vassals, expected to obey and glorify their lords.
Karl Marx, in The Communist Manifesto, argued that “the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.” This rings true in the Philippines, where the state—regardless of who sits in power—operates not for the masses but for the ruling elite. The supposed opposition between Marcos and Duterte is but a quarrel between factions of the same ruling class, both seeking to consolidate their grip on power while the working class remains marginalized, their demands drowned out by political theater.
History repeats itself not as a tragedy, but as a farce. Every administration that claims to bring change merely reshuffles the same power structures, with new faces but the same exploitative system. The masses are given the illusion of choice, but the system itself remains intact—warlords still rule, landlords still prevail, oligarchs still exploit. The Philippines they present as “new” is nothing but the same old Philippines, wrapped in different propaganda.
As José Rizal once wrote in El Filibusterismo, “Woe to the nation whose destiny is entrusted to men whose past is clouded with crime.” Both Marcos and Duterte have built their reigns on impunity—one through martial law, the other through extrajudicial killings. To accept either of them as the rightful rulers of the nation is to accept a future built on bloodshed, deception, and submission.
It is the conscienced folk—those driven by genuine concern for the country—who recognize that neither Duterte nor Marcos should decide the nation’s future. To break free from this cycle, one must challenge not just the leaders but the very system that enables them. The question is not who among them is better, but why the people are forced to choose between them at all.
For what is this feud but a distraction? The same oligarchs who have long funded and benefited from these administrations continue to pull the strings. Are Duterte and Marcos truly at odds, or is this just another calculated move to keep the people divided? True opposition does not lie in choosing a side between them—it lies in rejecting the very system that keeps them in power.
Beyond the Illusion of Choice
If history has proven anything, it is that true change cannot come from those who are themselves products of a broken system. The people are not simply trapped between Marcos and Duterte; they are trapped within a political order that perpetuates their rule. The real question is not who should lead among them, but why the people continue to allow such figures to dominate national politics.
The Philippines has long been presented with a false choice—Duterte or Marcos, dictatorship or populism, lawlessness or strongman rule. But for those who see beyond these illusions, the answer is clear: neither of them deserve to dictate the country’s future. The only ones who can truly lead the nation toward justice and democracy are those who reject the cycle of political patronage altogether.
As Marx warned, “The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class shall misrepresent them in parliament.” So long as the country continues to fall into this trap, nothing will change. The conscienced folk—those who refuse to be forced into choosing between two evils—must be the ones to break the cycle.
For what is this feud but a carefully crafted illusion? Marcos and Duterte pretend to be at odds, yet they are two sides of the same coin. The oligarchs who fund them remain untouched. The landlords who profit from the people’s misery continue to thrive. The warlords who silence dissent still hold power.
Thus, the fight is not between Marcos and Duterte, nor is it between their supporters. The true battle is between those who see the world as it is and those who continue to believe in the illusions of power. And in that battle, only the conscienced must decide.