When Family Members Also Show Rift — Resulting in Desperate Measures
In the life of a nation, as in the life of a ruling family, unity is never a luxury. It is a structural requirement for stable governance. A household divided—especially one that sits at the summit of state power—weakens institutions, invites opportunism, and endangers the collective well-being of the people. Today, the Philippines confronts a perilous spectacle: a ruling family ruptured from within.
Speaking before a rally of Iglesia ni Cristo devotees assembled allegedly "against corruption in government" at the Quirino Grandstand Monday evening, the nation watched as Senator Imee Marcos publicly accused her own brother, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., of a supposed long-standing struggle with drug dependence. She went further, implicating the First Lady by asserting that his alleged condition had worsened because “they were both the same.” Her plea—“end your suffering and the suffering of the nation, come home and seek treatment”—was delivered in full public view.
On its surface, such a statement may pass as maternal concern. Yet the timing, the political environment, and the public stage chosen reveal far more: a calculated blow presented as compassion, an internal strike shrouded in the language of moral intervention.
Malacañang’s Firm Response
The Presidential Communications Office, through Undersecretary Claire Castro, condemned the senator’s statements as a “desperate move” and demanded clarity regarding her motives.
She noted that the rally in question was about alleged corruption—not personal attacks against the President. Her question cut directly into the controversy: “What reason does Senator Imee have to malign her own brother?”
Castro reiterated the verified facts: President Marcos voluntarily underwent a drug test before the 2022 elections, with results confirmed negative by St. Luke’s Medical Center. She cited the official statement: “President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. did test negative for cocaine in 2021.”
Her reminder of the senator’s selective outrage was pointed: “Why is she now concerned about alleged drug use when former President Duterte openly admitted to marijuana and fentanyl? She never called him out.”
Thus, the claim of moral urgency collapses under the weight of political context.
The Political Context of 2025
This breakdown within the ruling family did not emerge from chance or emotion. Its roots lie in the political maneuvers surrounding the 2025 elections. Senator Marcos withdrew from the coalition supported by her brother—the Alyansa para sa Bagong Pilipinas (Alliance for the New Philippines)—shortly after the government surrendered former President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court. Long known as a staunch Duterte ally, she repositioned herself almost immediately, securing the endorsement of Vice President Sara Duterte, with whom President Marcos had already experienced a profound political rupture.
The pattern reflects calculation rather than conscience. It is a familiar choreography in Philippine politics: ambition clothed in the language of concern, rivalry disguised as duty. Her decision did more than create a split within the ruling family—it fractured the loyalist bloc itself. The once-unified constituency that had supported both Marcos and Duterte in 2016 found itself divided, with many choosing to align with the former president out of sentiment, grievance, or ideological convenience. Some even rationalized this pivot as an act of “true loyalism,” arguing that Senator Imee’s siding with the Dutertes carried greater legitimacy precisely because she bore the Marcos name.
Such a realignment reveals the deeper truth: this was not a moral stand but a political wager, executed in full awareness of its consequences for both family and nation..
The pattern reflects calculation rather than conscience. It is a familiar choreography in Philippine politics: ambition clothed in the language of concern, rivalry disguised as duty. Her decision did more than create a split within the ruling family—it fractured the loyalist bloc itself. The once-unified constituency that had supported both Marcos and Duterte in 2016 found itself divided, with many choosing to align with the former president out of sentiment, grievance, or ideological convenience. Some even rationalized this pivot as an act of “true loyalism,” arguing that Senator Imee’s siding with the Dutertes carried greater legitimacy precisely because she bore the Marcos name.
Such a realignment reveals the deeper truth: this was not a moral stand but a political wager, executed in full awareness of its consequences for both family and nation..
The Son’s Response: A Defiant Stand for Family and State
If the senator intended to weaken her brother, she underestimated the resolve of the President’s immediate family. House Majority Leader Sandro Marcos responded with clarity and firmness.
He expressed sorrow over the senator’s descent into fabrication: “It pains me to see how low she has gone, resorting to a web of lies aimed at destabilizing this government to advance her political ambitions.”
He called the allegations dangerously irresponsible, noting that they now targeted not just the President and First Lady, but himself and even younger family members. The betrayal was personal as well as political: “We always agreed that whatever happened between our parents, we would not drag ourselves into it. For her to betray her own family brings me great sadness.”
He delivered the final judgment with unequivocal severity: “This is not the behavior of a true sister.”
The Lesson for the Nation
History has repeatedly shown that divided leadership results in weakened governance. When a family entrusted with power fractures, the consequences extend far beyond private grievances—weakening state structures, emboldening opportunists, and attracting foreign exploitation.
Senator Imee Marcos’s accusations were not an act of familial concern. They were a deliberate escalation of political conflict, concealed beneath the language of public duty. Her alignment with the Duterte bloc intensifies the implications.
Yet nevertheless, this rift does not erase a deeper reality: the members of this ruling family swore to uphold an order that has long been corroded. As the late Senator José Avelino once remarked, there are “Good Crooks” and “Bad Crooks” within the bureaucracy—if not within society as a whole. This maxim, cynical yet accurate, illuminates the present moment: internal strife does not exempt the ruling class from complicity in a system already bent under the weight of its own decay.
Even so, desperate measures—once unleashed—never remain confined to the family. They spill outward, eroding governance and fraying the unity of the state itself.
Thus, the President, his family, and those loyal to the stability of the state must had to stand firm—undeterred by internal efforts at destabilization.
Let the public record stand: Loyalty, integrity, and unity remain the pillars of legitimate authority. Betrayal, even from within the same bloodline, imperils not only a family but the nation it governs.
For a people to endure, their leaders must endure together. And when internal fractures threaten national coherence, the guardians of the order must act decisively against those who divide for private gain.