Political violence is nothing new in the Philippines. It was, after all, the site of the world’s worst massacre of media workers when 58 people, including 32 journalists, were murdered in 2009 while traveling in an election convoy on the southern island of Mindanao.
The powerful Ampatuan clan had pre-dug a vast grave in preparation for the cars carrying relatives of their rival, former Buluan vice mayor Esmael Mangudadatu, to arrive at a police checkpoint. Heavily armed gunmen intercepted the motorcade, killing then burying them all.
I was on Mindanao soon after as part of a team of press freedom groups, including the Committee to Protect Journalists and the International Federation of Journalists, that examined the killings: It was a chilling scene. There has been a steady stream of local assassinations and kidnappings ever since, and plenty beforehand, too.
So when Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte — daughter of former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte — released a bizarre video on Nov. 23 telling Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr she would have him assassinated if someone did the same to her, many rolled their eyes and prepared for another round of hostilities.
The influential media site Rappler was first to draw the similarities: “Sara Duterte unleashes the Ampatuan within,” its headline read, noting her video was released on the 15th anniversary of the massacre.
Duterte announced her resignation from Marcos’ cabinet in June, while remaining vice president, highlighting the extent of the fallout between the two families. Since then, she has been escalating her criticisms of the president, threatening to exhume his father’s remains and throw them in the sea, and saying that she imagined beheading him. Duterte also alleged, as others have before her, that the Marcos family plotted the assassination of former Philippine senator Benigno Aquino — a member of another large political dynasty — in 1983.
For his part, Marcos has tightened his security and said: “Such criminal attempts should not be ignored,” while the Philippine National Bureau of Investigation issued a subpoena to Duterte. After all, she might have downplayed her remarks, but it is hard to ignore her repeated thoughts of violence about the president.
A government panel postponed its Friday hearing into allegations Duterte misused public funds, claims she has denied, to allow her to answer the subpoena instead.
So what happens now? The nation’s mid-term elections are due next year and Rodrigo Duterte has filed his candidacy for mayor of Davao on the island of Mindanao — a position that he has held before, and one the clan has controlled for three decades. His two sons are also planning to run for the Philippine Senate. Of course Marcos himself is in the family business: He is the son of former dictator Ferdinand Marcos, known for his rampant corruption and deadly political repression, while his sister, Imee, is a senator, his son is a congressman and his cousin is house speaker. It is dynastic politics run wild, and unless it is contained, this feud would set the Philippines on another course of instability at the worst possible time — it is dealing with daily threats from China in the South China Sea and facing the uncertainty that comes with US president-elect Donald Trump in the White House.
The political marriage of convenience between the rival clans forged during the 2022 elections that brought Marcos to power was never going to last. Things deteriorated quickly when the Philippine House of Representatives began hearings in August to examine Rodrigo Duterte’s deadly drug war, along with his daughter’s actions as head of the Philippine Department of Education.
There are other pressures, too: The International Criminal Court (ICC) is also investigating Rodrigo Duterte’s campaign of extrajudicial killings during his term as president from 2016 to 2022 that left more than 6,000 dead. Human rights groups such as Amnesty International say the toll could be as high as 30,000.
Although Marcos has said he does not support an outside investigation, it no doubt sent a chill through the Duterte clan when his executive secretary announced that if ICC refers the process to Interpol and requests the Philippines’ help, it would receive full cooperation.
All that domestic drama would be troubling the Philippines’ allies and partners — particularly the US, Japan and Australia — which have been steadfast in their support for Marcos’ policy of pushing back against China’s hostile actions in the South China Sea, where more than US$3 trillion in goods pass through every year. When he took office, Marcos steered the nation away from his predecessor’s soft approach to Beijing, granting the US military access to more bases, increasing naval missions in the disputed waterway and widely publicizing violent attacks on its vessels by the Chinese Coast Guard.
Earlier this month, the president signed two laws to strengthen the Philippines’ maritime claims, including one that creates a system for foreign vessels and aircraft to exercise the right of passage through its waters and airspace. Beijing, which lays claim to most of the South China Sea, strongly condemned the move.
Manila cannot afford to be distracted by this latest round of clan rivalry and violence threats. Trump has appointed two China hawks in key roles in his new cabinet: US Senator Marco Rubio is in line for secretary of state, while US Representative Mike Waltz is tipped to be national security advisor. That means US and China relations are set for another rocky period, and one where its treaty allies, such as the Philippines, would be expected to continue with their own tough stance against Beijing.
Marcos has managed the drama well so far, but he needs to get his house in order. As jaw-droppingly unhinged as Philippine politics can be, there are larger issues at stake — and powerful allies to keep happy.
Ruth Pollard is a Bloomberg Opinion managing editor. Previously she was South and Southeast Asia government team leader at Bloomberg News and Middle East correspondent for the Sydney Morning Herald.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS