Strategic Deflection and Elite Preservation: Unpacking the Marcos-Duterte Alliance in Contemporary Philippine Governance
Strategic Deflection and Elite Preservation: Unpacking the Marcos-Duterte Alliance in Contemporary Philippine Governance
In the aftermath of the 2022 Philippine national elections, the political alliance between President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. (BBM) and Vice President Sara Duterte was heralded as a symbol of unity—an electoral juggernaut that promised stability, continuity, and national cohesion. Branded as the "Uniteam," this coalition fused two powerful political dynasties, each bearing the weight of historical controversy and populist appeal. Yet, as the administration unfolded, the alliance revealed itself not as a partnership of equals but as a strategic apparatus for deflection, insulation, and elite preservation. This essay critically examines the Marcos-Duterte dynamic, arguing that Vice President Duterte has been positioned as both a political buffer and a sacrificial figure—absorbing public outrage and institutional scrutiny to shield the president and his allies from accountability.
The Spectacle of Unity and the Architecture of Deflection
The Uniteam's collapse is not merely a political fallout but a spectacle of strategic deflection. The original essay's framing of Duterte as BBM's “insurance policy and punching bag” is not hyperbole but a metaphor for the administration's broader tactic: using Duterte's visibility and polarizing persona to reroute criticism away from the president. This maneuver is emblematic of a governance style that privileges optics over substance, and survival over reform.
In the early months of BBM's presidency, agricultural smuggling—particularly the inflation of onion prices—became a flashpoint of public anger. At one point, a kilogram of onions reportedly cost more than the average daily wage, symbolizing the grotesque distortion of market regulation and state oversight. Allegations implicated the First Lady and her associates, yet the issue dissipated without resolution. This pattern—scandal followed by strategic forgetting—sets the tone for the administration's approach to crisis management: suppress visibility, redirect blame, and preserve elite interests.
Bureaucratic Sabotage and the Weaponization of Procedure
The December 2022 release of confidential funds to the Office of the Vice President (OVP) less than 20 days before the fiscal year's end is a critical moment in the essay's narrative. The timing, the essay argues, was not accidental but tactical—a bureaucratic trap designed to force Duterte into rapid spending that could later be weaponized against her. In Philippine government accounting, unused funds by year-end can trigger red flags from the Commission on Audit (COA), potentially leading to accusations of inefficiency or misuse.
Indeed, in 2023, Duterte faced criticism for spending the confidential funds within 11 days. Critics labeled her “Inday Lustay,” a derogatory moniker that framed her as wasteful and irresponsible. Yet this critique ignored the procedural necessity of year-end liquidation. The essay contends that the administration exploited public ignorance of fiscal protocols to vilify Duterte while shielding BBM from scrutiny. This tactic reflects a broader phenomenon in Philippine governance: the weaponization of bureaucratic procedures to manufacture scandal and deflect accountability.
Budgetary Bloat and the Politics of Distraction
While Duterte was being lambasted for her confidential fund expenditures, the House of Representatives—under Speaker Martin Romualdez—quietly increased its budget across three consecutive years: ₱12 billion in 2023, ₱12.5 billion in 2024, and ₱17.32 billion in 2025. These augmentations occurred after bicameral budget meetings and were approved without objection by BBM. The juxtaposition—Duterte's vilification versus Congress's unchecked budget expansion—underscores the essay's claim that Duterte is being used to distract from systemic corruption.
The impeachment proceedings against Duterte, although ultimately unsuccessful, served to amplify this deflection. The essay suggests that the administration deliberately fed Duterte to opposition forces ("Kakampinks," a colloquial term for supporters of former Vice President Leni Robredo) to redirect attention from more egregious budgetary abuses. In this framing, Duterte becomes both scapegoat and sacrificial offering, her political survival contingent on absorbing public rage.
This dynamic reveals a cynical calculus: the administration tolerates and even orchestrates attacks on Duterte to preserve the president's image and insulate his allies from scrutiny. The media's complicity—amplifying the confidential fund controversy while ignoring congressional budget bloat—further entrenches this asymmetry of accountability.
Flood Control and the Illusion of Reform
The flood control crisis, which elicited genuine public anger, is presented as a turning point. For the first time, the essay claims, citizens were truly incensed—not by media narratives but by lived experience. Yet BBM and his allies positioned themselves as reformers who "discovered" the problem, despite being its architects. The essay accuses BBM of enabling congressional corruption through budget approvals, arguing that he could have vetoed the allocations but chose instead to celebrate them.
This moment reveals the administration's mastery of issue rerouting. As public scrutiny intensified, blame was redirected toward the Duterte administration, Davao City, and Sara herself—deflecting attention from Metro Manila and BBM's own complicity. The essay critiques this tactic as a cynical manipulation of regional and partisan fault lines.
The flood control issue also exposes the limits of performative governance. BBM's attempt to present himself as a reformer is undermined by his budgetary complicity. The essay's rhetorical question—"Who approved the budget?"—serves as a reminder that executive power includes the capacity to veto, revise, and resist. BBM's failure to exercise this power implicates him in the very corruption he claims to oppose.
Tactical Alliances and the Politics of Preservation
The final section explores the internal contradictions within the opposition. The Kakampinks, despite their disdain for BBM, are reluctant to call for his resignation. Two reasons are offered: first, the tactical alliance between BBM and Duterte remains intact; second, the opposition fears that Duterte's removal would not result in a leadership transition favorable to their interests. BBM, aware of this dynamic, refuses to fully commit to Duterte's impeachment. He understands that her presence protects him from becoming the opposition's primary target.
This strategic ambiguity—keeping Duterte in place while allowing her to absorb criticism—creates internal conflict within the opposition. The longer Duterte remains, the more the Kakampinks appear complicit in BBM's governance. The essay concludes with a sardonic "good luck," underscoring the futility of opposition efforts within a system designed to preserve elite interests.
This dynamic reveals a paradox: the opposition's desire for reform is undermined by its strategic calculations. The essay's critique is not merely of BBM but of a political culture that prioritizes tactical advantage over ethical clarity. The Kakampinks' reluctance to confront BBM directly reflects a broader failure to articulate a coherent alternative to elite preservation.
Beyond Scandal: Toward Structural Critique
The essay's rhetorical intensity—marked by sarcasm, invective, and colloquial critique—mirrors the urgency of its message: that Philippine democracy is being hollowed out by elites who master the art of distraction. Yet beneath this intensity lies a deeper structural critique. The Marcos-Duterte alliance is not an anomaly but a symptom of a political system that rewards deflection, punishes transparency, and thrives on spectacle.
The use of Duterte as a political buffer reflects a broader pattern in Philippine governance: the instrumentalization of public figures to absorb outrage, deflect scrutiny, and preserve elite interests. This pattern is sustained by media complicity, bureaucratic opacity, and public fatigue. The essay's call to “ask the right questions” is a plea for civic literacy—a demand that citizens interrogate not just personalities but procedures, not just scandals but structures.
The essay also invites reflection on the ethics of governance. When accountability is rerouted through tactical scapegoating, the public is left with outrage but no resolution. The administration's ability to manufacture scandal, suppress scrutiny, and preserve its image reflects a crisis of democratic substance. The Marcos-Duterte alliance, in this framing, is not a partnership of governance but a choreography of distraction.
Conclusion: Memory, Agency, and the Ethics of Resistance
In reframing the original essay into an academic critique, we uncover a layered analysis of political deflection, elite preservation, and civic erosion. The Marcos-Duterte alliance, once celebrated as a symbol of unity, has become a spectacle of strategic insulation—where Vice President Duterte functions as both shield and scapegoat. Through budgetary maneuvers, media manipulation, and tactical ambiguity, the administration redirects attention from systemic corruption to personalized scandal.
This analysis invites broader reflection on the ethics of resistance. In a political culture that thrives on distraction, the challenge is not merely to expose scandal but to build structures of accountability. The essay's insistence on asking the right questions—about budgetary procedure, executive complicity, and media framing—is a call to reclaim civic agency. It is a reminder that memory, when operationalized as critique, can become a form of resistance.
In the end, the Marcos-Duterte dynamic is not just a political alliance but a mirror of the Philippine state's fragility. To confront it is to confront the architecture of deflection itself—and to imagine a politics grounded not in spectacle but in ethical care, structural reform, and collective memory.
---
If you like my concept research, writing explorations, and/or simple writings please support me by sending me a coffee treat at my paypal amielgeraldroldan.paypal.me
Amiel Gerald Roldan
I'm trying to complement my writings with helpful inputs from AI through writing. Bear with me as I am treating this blog as repositories and drafts.
please comment and tag if you like my compilations visit www.amielroldan.blogspot.com or www.amielroldan.wordpress.com
and comments at
amiel_roldan@outlook.com
amielgeraldroldan@gmail.com
If you like my works, concept, reflective research, writing explorations, and/or simple writings please support me by sending
me a coffee treat at GCash/GXI 09053027965 or http://paypal.me/AmielGeraldRoldan
Amiel Gerald A. Roldan: a multidisciplinary Filipino artist, poet, researcher, and cultural worker whose practice spans painting, printmaking, photography, installation, academic writing, and trauma-informed mythmaking. He is deeply rooted in cultural memory, postcolonial critique, and speculative cosmology, and in bridging creative practice with scholarly infrastructure—building counter-archives, annotating speculative poetry like Southeast Asian manuscripts, and fostering regional solidarity through ethical collaboration.
Comments