President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has offered one of his most pointed critiques yet of the Philippine political system, arguing that the country’s democratic framework, as shaped by the 1987 Constitution, encourages policy reversals, short-term thinking, and a chronic lack of continuity in governance.
In an interview with Bloomberg Television, Marcos said he worries less about political rivalries than about a deeper structural problem: a system in which elected officials spend much of their time preparing for the next election rather than implementing long-term reforms.
“Continuity is the key,” the president said. He lamented what he described as a political culture in which incoming leaders often discard the programs of their predecessors simply because they were initiated by someone else. “There’s a stop and go. That really gets in the way,” Marcos said, adding that having continuity is “the only way for us to strengthen our institutions.”
The remarks come as Marcos faces growing uncertainty over the future of his administration’s reforms amid an increasingly bitter political rupture with Vice President Sara Duterte, his former running mate in the victorious UniTeam coalition of 2022. While Marcos rejected the notion that choosing Duterte as a running mate was a mistake.
He admitted a concern that the reform in bureaucracy his administration is now pursuing could be undone by a future government. “We are trying to reform the bureaucracy,” he said. “These things don’t get done instantly. And it’s very, very easy to go off the rails.”
A Constitution Designed to Prevent Dictatorship
Marcos’ criticism touches a longstanding debate among constitutional scholars: whether the safeguards introduced after the fall of his father, former President Ferdinand Marcos Sr., have unintentionally weakened the state’s capacity for long-term governance. Drafted in the aftermath of the 1986 People Power Revolution, the 1987 Constitution was deliberately designed to prevent the concentration of power. It imposed strict term limits, prohibited presidential reelection, and shortened political tenures across multiple levels of government.
Framers of the 1987 Constitution have long argued that these provisions protect democracy from authoritarianism. Critics, however, contend that the same safeguards have produced a political system where officials often prioritize electoral survival over institutional development.
Marcos pointed specifically to the three-year terms imposed on local government officials and members of the House of Representatives. According to the president, newly elected lawmakers often spend their first months learning the mechanics of governance and building relationships necessary to pass legislation. The next election cycle already comes knocking by the time elected officials become effective.
“After that period, you hear that there’s somebody in your district beginning to campaign,” Marcos said. “So you have to go back to your district to take care of that.” The result, he suggested, is a political culture dominated by perpetual campaigning rather than sustained policymaking.
The Duterte Factor
The debate over continuity has taken on added urgency because of the dramatic collapse of the Marcos-Duterte alliance. Although the UniTeam ticket delivered one of the largest electoral victories in recent Philippine history, the partnership quickly deteriorated after taking office.
Public tensions escalated following Vice President Duterte’s resignation in 2024 as Education secretary and vice chair of the government’s anti-insurgency task force. Relations worsened further amid a series of public confrontations between the Marcos and Duterte camps.
The conflict reached a new level when Duterte disclosed that she had instructed someone to kill Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez should an alleged assassination plot against her succeed. The statement later became one of the allegations cited in impeachment proceedings against the vice president.
Against that backdrop, Marcos acknowledged concern that a future Duterte presidency could reverse key initiatives of his administration. Yet he sought to downplay suggestions that the country is witnessing a political war between rival dynasties.
“I’m not conducting any more political war against anyone,” he said. “I’m just trying to do my job.”
The Cost of Political Reset
For economists and governance experts, the issue Marcos raises extends beyond the current feud.
Countries that have achieved sustained economic growth in East and Southeast Asia often benefited from long-term development strategies that survived changes in political leadership. Infrastructure plans, industrial policies, and bureaucratic reforms were maintained across administrations, allowing institutions to mature over decades rather than electoral cycles.
In the Philippines, however, flagship projects and policy priorities frequently change with every administration, creating uncertainty for investors, bureaucrats, and local governments.
Marcos argued that this pattern is reinforced by constitutional structures and by what he described as a “small-town attitude” in politics, where succeeding leaders often regard everything done by their predecessors as inherently flawed.
The challenge, he suggested, is not merely winning elections but building institutions strong enough to outlast them. “The work of national development is a million times more important,” Marcos said.
His comments revive a question that has shadowed Philippine politics for decades: whether the Constitution that helped restore democracy after dictatorship has also made it more difficult for governments to govern consistently. That debate is likely to become central to discussions about constitutional reform, political stability, and the future direction of the Philippine state as the country moves toward another election cycle.
About The Author
