The political dynamics between Rodrigo Duterte and Ferdinand Marcos Jr. are not just a tale of two leaders; they represent a deeper struggle over history, power, and public sentiment. How did Duterte, once hailed as the people’s strongman, lose his grip on authority?

The dynamics of power between Rodrigo Duterte and Ferdinand Marcos Jr reflect a complex interaction of political machinations deeply rooted in the historical and cultural context of the Philippines. Their relationship is not defined exclusively by their individual ambitions or historical inheritance, but also by the underground social currents and the institutional configurations that have influenced political authority and legitimacy. The analysis of the factors that led to the perceived loss of Duterte in these dynamics of power requires the examination of the nature of an evolution of political alliances and public sentiment, resulting in Duterte being sent to the Hague under a warrant by the International Criminal Court (ICC). 

A significant factor that has contributed to Duterte’s decreasing power is the erosion of public trust catalysed by the violent anti-drug campaign of his administration from 2016 to 2022. Initially, many Filipinos supported his hard approach, observing it as a necessary measure to combat narcotics and restore order. However, as news of extrajudicial murders and violations of human rights emerged, public opinion has moved. The polls revealed a rapid decline in the approval assessments, reporting a growing discomfort among the population as regards the moral and ethical implications of its governance. While public support has fallen, the influence of Duterte also fell, leading to an increasingly tenuous position in the dynamics of power with President Marcos Jr., who capitalized on the decline to obtain a political lever. Marcos is in the political fight of his life against Sara Duterte, his vice-president and the political heir to Rodrigo. Sara Duterte is currently facing four  impeachment complaints, including a public threat to the life of President Marcos Jnr. 

In addition, the changing political panorama played a crucial role. The rise of Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is emblematic of a broader institutional and electoral transition marked by rehabilitation and nostalgia for the politics of a strong man era, symbolised by Marcos Snr. Marcos’ ability to resonate with the feelings of the voters, in particular among the young generations who may not have directly experienced the implications of martial law during his father’s dictatorship, indicates a recalibration of political loyalty. This generational change, combined with a concerted effort by Marcos and his supporters to reformulate historical narratives, allowed him to challenge and in the end undermine the position of Duterte. It indicates a powerful phenomenon in Philippine politics in which historical revisionism and populism can significantly alter the political landscape. 

Duterte’s foreign policy approach has also helped to destabilize its authority. The strategic pivot towards narrower ties with China collided with nationalistic feelings and historical alliances, with the United States. While Duterte initially positioned himself as a non-traditional leader willing to challenge Western influence like his predecessor Rodrigo, the branches of this pivot have been complicated. Local criticisms approached the abandonment of Duterte for the Filipin territorial claims in the South Chinese Sea. This discontent has undermined its national position and allowed political opponents, including Marcos, to exploit the nationalist rhetoric against him.  

A fundamental moment that has further complicated the dynamics of Duterte’s power is its potential procedure by the ICC. The prospect of being held responsible for alleged crimes against humanity related to his war on drugs increases profound implications for his legacy and future political manoeuvres. While Duterte has vehemently denounced the jurisdiction of the ICC and withdrew from ICC jurisdiction during his rule, labelling it an affront to the Philippine sovereignty, the ICC warrant destabilized its support base. The narrative of the ICC warrant served to delegitimize his presidency.  

In addition, the investigations of the ICC also invite a revaluation of how future leaders will sail in governance in an increasingly sensitive climate to human rights. The branches of the potential judicial proceeding of Duterte can resonate well beyond its administration, influencing how subsequent leaders approach controversial policies and the relationship between international law and domestic sovereignty. Therefore, even if Duterte is ultimately exonerated, the journey through the ICC can serve as a powerful lesson for future administrations, indicating that leaders’ actions could generate a global response. 

In the end, the interaction of public sentiment, historical narratives, foreign policy, and international supervision illustrates the multifaceted nature of the dynamics of power in the Philippines. The loss of sovereignty, as seen by Duterte supporters in the political conflict with Ferdinand Marcos Jr., is viewed as the result of a gradual erosion of public trust. This shift in political alliances is compounded by the looming possibility of international intervention. 

Even If Duterte is found not guilty by ICC, his place is history is assured- he will be the first leader from the region to be persecuted by the ICC. If he is found guilty, many countries in the region will hesitate to join the ICC. 

James Chin is Professor of Asian Studies at the University of Tasmania and vice-president of AIIA Tasmania Branch.