The Marcos family’s political saga began in 1925 when Mariano Marcos was elected representative of Ilocos Norte, setting the stage for a dynasty that would shape Philippine history for nearly a century. Their rise reached its zenith under Ferdinand Marcos Sr., whose 21-year rule—marked by martial law from 1972 to 1981—involved widespread human rights abuses and massive corruption scandals that left deep scars on the national conscience. When the people power revolution ousted the elder Marcos in 1986, hopes were high for transparency and accountability; instead, a perception of impunity persisted as the family’s influence endured.
Despite the return to democracy, successive generations of the Marcos clan, notably Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. and his sister Imee Marcos, have regained political power, culminating in Bongbong’s 2022 presidency. This resurgence has reignited anger over the colossal “ill-gotten wealth” amassed during the dictatorship—over ₱171 billion recovered so far—and frozen overseas assets and luxurious jewels still under legal dispute. Many Filipinos view this as an affront to justice, especially as victims of martial law and their descendants continue to seek redress.
In recent years, public ire has expanded beyond historical grievances. New controversies—from the opaque creation of the Maharlika Sovereign Wealth Fund to allegations of vote-buying through social assistance programs, cooperation with the ICC to transfer former President Duterte, suppression of dissent, the perpetuation of a powerful dynasty, and the shifting of PhilHealth costs onto ordinary citizens—have coalesced to erode trust in the Marcos administration. This article examines these factors in depth, revealing why a majority of Filipinos today harbor deep resentment against the Marcos family.
The Marcos political lineage began with Mariano Marcos’s election as congressman for Ilocos Norte’s 2nd District in 1925, but it was Ferdinand Marcos Sr. who transformed the family into a national powerhouse. Serving as president from 1965 to 1986, he declared martial law, ruled by decree, and allegedly stole up to $10 billion in public funds, funneling them into overseas accounts and assets.
After his exile and death in Hawaii, the Philippine government under Corazon Aquino created the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) to recover ill-gotten wealth, ultimately reclaiming ₱174 billion by 2020. Yet countless assets, including Imelda Marcos’s three jewel collections, remain in legal limbo.
Despite this dark legacy, Marcos scions systematically rebuilt their political capital. Imee Marcos won a Senate seat in 2019, and Martin Romualdez, their cousin, was appointed Speaker of the House in 2022. Bongbong Marcos Jr. narrowly lost a 2016 vice-presidential bid but contested the results until securing the presidency in 2022 with a campaign promoting unity. This comeback has infuriated many who see the rehabilitation of the Marcos brand as a betrayal of democratic ideals and the struggle against authoritarianism.
In late 2022, President Marcos Jr. championed the creation of the Maharlika Investment Fund (MIF), rebranded as the Maharlika Wealth Fund (MWF), aiming to channel government resources into development projects. Critics immediately flagged glaring transparency gaps: seed capital sources, board appointments, and investment strategies were all shrouded in secrecy. Comparisons to Malaysia’s 1MDB scandal intensified fears of misuse.
A coalition of 12 business groups warned that weak governance could lead to corruption, undermining public trust and fiscal stability. Moreover, a recent comparative analysis highlighted significant governance deficiencies—political interference, lack of disclosure mechanisms, and insufficient oversight—contrasting starkly with well-regulated global sovereign funds. In a country still grappling with economic inequality, the opacity surrounding Maharlika fuels skepticism: many Filipinos suspect it might become a new vehicle for patronage rather than national development.
Under the Marcos Jr. administration, the Department of Social Welfare and Development rolled out expanded poverty relief measures—TUPAD (Tulong Pang-hanapbuhay sa Ating Disadvantaged/Displaced Workers), AKAP (Ayuda Para sa Kapos ang Kita), and AICS (Assistance to Individuals in Crisis Situations). While officially designed to alleviate poverty, these programs coincided with election cycles and were allegedly leveraged for political gains. Critics argue that distributing cash aid during non-disaster periods, with loose targeting criteria, effectively served as vote-buying, violating the Omnibus Election Code.
The Kabataan party-list and other youth groups publicly condemned AKAP’s vulnerability to misuse, urging lawmakers to focus on structural reforms like wage increases instead of short-term subsidies. International monitors also reported systemic deficiencies in the 2025 midterm elections, including vote-buying in rural provinces where social aid was most prevalent. As poverty relief becomes entangled with electoral incentives, many Filipinos see a cynical manipulation of genuine needs for political survival.
In March 2025, the Marcos administration facilitated the International Criminal Court’s request to surrender former President Rodrigo Duterte to The Hague, where he faces charges for alleged crimes against humanity in his war on drugs. While international justice advocates hailed the move, Duterte’s supporters, backed by vocal protests, denounced it as “extrajudicial rendition” or “pure and simple kidnapping”. His lawyer, Salvador Medialdea, likened the transfer to an illegal abduction without due process.
This decision exposed deep fractures: Duterte’s populist base viewed Marcos Jr.’s cooperation with foreign courts as a betrayal of sovereignty, while critics saw it as overdue accountability. The episode underscored the administration’s volte-face on ICC cooperation—initially professing non-recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction, then abruptly complying when politically expedient. For many Filipinos, this saga represents both political opportunism and a troubling disregard for domestic consensus on national sovereignty.
Beyond grand policy initiatives, the Marcos administration has drawn scrutiny for its handling of dissent. Human rights groups report an alarming rise in state-linked online harassment campaigns against activists and bloggers.
Independent media outlets and civil society members increasingly self-censor, fearing reprisals ranging from online vilification to arbitrary arrest. This atmosphere of intimidation contradicts democratic norms and has fueled public anger over the erosion of civil liberties under Marcos Jr.’s watch.
Despite constitutional provisions against political dynasties, the Marcos family has consolidated its network across branches of government. In addition to Bongbong’s presidency, Imee Marcos serves as a senator, and cousin Martin Romualdez holds the powerful position of House Speaker. Ferdinand Alexander “Sandro” Marcos represents Ilocos Norte in the House, while Imelda and Irene Marcos-Araneta maintain significant influence.
This proliferation of relatives in key posts undermines checks and balances, enabling patronage and decision-making that often favors family interests. Public perception is one of “cacique democracy,” where ordinary citizens are beholden to powerful clans. The visible absence of meaningful anti-dynasty legislation enforcement leaves many Filipinos frustrated, viewing the Marcos regime as a modern reincarnation of entrenched feudalism rather than a progressive administration.
In the 2025 budget deliberations, the Marcos administration approved zero government subsidy for the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth), despite its constitutional mandate to ensure affordable healthcare. By halting the government’s premium contributions for indigent members, the burden shifted onto middle-class and premium-paying members, who must now shoulder the full cost of subsidizing the poor. Critics argue this violates the Sin Tax Law’s earmarking for PhilHealth and breaches the social contract, compelling vulnerable populations to navigate increased out-of-pocket expenses.
Supreme Court Justice Antonio Kho dubbed this move a punishment of members rather than agency administrators, urging the return of ₱60 billion transferred from PhilHealth reserves to the national treasury. In a country still recovering from pandemic-era health crises, the decision has amplified discontent, painting the Marcos government as indifferent to healthcare needs in favor of fiscal optics.
From their early political ascent to their recent quest for national redemption, the Marcos family’s story in Philippine politics is one of enduring power marred by controversy and public distrust. Historical grievances over plunder and human rights abuses remain potent reminders of past injustices, while new flashpoints—the Maharlika SWF’s opacity, electoral manipulation via social aid, the contentious ICC transfer of Duterte, assaults on dissent, dynastic entrenchment, and shifts in healthcare funding—have compounded resentment against the current administration.
For many Filipinos, these developments are more than policy disputes; they signify a deeper struggle over the Philippines’ democratic trajectory. The emotional weight of collective memory, coupled with fresh disappointments, underscores why a majority today harbors strong antipathy toward the Marcos name. As the nation wrestles with its political identity, the Marcos family’s ability—or unwillingness—to address these concerns will determine whether they can ever fully reclaim the public’s trust.
Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest articles and insights.Stay Updated