We are so accustomed to seeing spouses and siblings from the same families dominate our political system that we often view the government itself as a family, with its top officials as the nation’s parents. This perspective makes it unsettling to witness open quarrels between the president and vice president. Public disputes, personal accusations, and threats between them make us uncomfortable. Our instinct is to urge reconciliation for the sake of national unity.
Nothing could be more naïve and misguided, particularly in a society striving for modernity. Government is not a family. The Philippine Constitution defines the nation as a democratic state, with power divided among three co-equal branches: the executive, legislative, and judiciary. While these branches are expected to cooperate, a key aspect of their function is to serve as checks and balances against one another.
In addition to this structure, a modern political system relies on periodic elections where rival parties compete for power. Political authority is not inherited but earned through the electoral process. Those who win the most votes form the government. Such a scheme does not render the opposition powerless; beyond the elections, its role is to hold the government accountable, critique its policies, and offer alternatives.
Conflict and debate among leaders are thus normal and necessary in a modern political system. What should worry us is the absence of dissent, or the prevalence of a climate of uncritical consensus among those in power. Robust opposition and open disagreements are signs of a healthy democracy. Looking back, one wishes there were more legislators, judges, and ranking civil servants who were bold enough to call out the excesses of the government under former president Rodrigo Duterte. But as we have seen, their silence or timidity turned them into unwitting enablers of a corrupt and oppressive regime.
This context frames Vice President Sara Duterte’s public fallout with President Bongbong Marcos. How should we respond to this bitter split between former allies? If we identify with the “UniTeam” coalition they formed for the 2022 elections, we might urge them to reconcile. But if we oppose the continuation of the toxic Duterte legacy, this rift would be less troubling. Indeed, it is a political development 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 vision for the country. Their collaboration was entirely pragmatic—a strategy to advance their individual political goals. For Mr. Marcos, the partnership was particularly advantageous. Having lost the vice presidential race to Leni Robredo in 2016, his presidential bid in 2022 clearly depended on Sara Duterte’s support, or, at the minimum, on her assurance that she would not herself seek the presidency. Whether this arrangement was formalized in a written agreement or governed by informal understandings about campaign finances, joint rallies, or power-sharing in the event of victory, any perceived betrayal is irrelevant to the public.
What matters now is the fallout’s impact. The breakdown of this alliance has opened the door to congressional inquiries into controversies surrounding the past Duterte administration. These hearings have shed light on critical issues, including human rights abuses, the anti-drug campaign, the corruption of the police, death squads, offshore gaming syndicates, the manipulation of local government units, and the misuse of public funds. They have also exposed the opaque use of confidential and intelligence funds by agencies like the Office of the Vice President.
Moreover, these investigations reveal how political favoritism undermines budget scrutiny and how vulnerable civil servants are to political pressure. None of these would have been possible if the Marcos-Duterte alliance had remained intact.
Government is not a family, nor should it function like one. We don’t choose our parents, and we might feel compelled to keep them together for the sake of stability. But in a democracy, we elect our leaders and hold them accountable. The nation benefits when its leaders debate openly, argue over policies, and expose one another’s shortcomings. Silence and unchecked harmony can be far more damaging than vigorous dissent.
—————–
public.lives@gmail.com