The year did not end in resolution. It ended in exposure. Philippine politics in 2025 was not defined by reforms passed or crises solved, but by masks falling off in full view of the public. What we witnessed was not chaos. It was a revelation. The system did not break. It revealed what it truly is.
At the center of this exposure is a paradox that now defines our political moment. While President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. struggles under the weight of corruption scandals, internal palace resignations, and credibility gaps, Vice President Sara Duterte remains politically buoyant. Recent surveys show her maintaining positive favorability even as Marcos flounders. This is not a statistical curiosity. It is a warning signal.
The public mood is no longer driven by governance outcomes. It is driven by emotional alignment. Marcos governs in a moment when people are angry at institutions, cynical about reform, and fatigued by promises that never materialize. In such a climate, competence does not inspire. Decisiveness does. And decisiveness, even when reckless, reads as strength to a public that feels abandoned.
This explains the year’s most unsettling political reality. The administration that promised stability now looks fragile, while the figure most associated with confrontation and disruption appears resilient. Sara Duterte’s favorability survives not because she has governed well, but because she has successfully positioned herself outside the failures of the system. Marcos, by contrast, owns the system. Every corruption scandal, every resignation framed as delicadeza but later contradicted, every budget controversy, every unresolved flood control expose sticks to him because he is the incumbent and because his narrative was order, professionalism, and calm.
The surveys are telling us something brutal. Voters are no longer choosing between good governance and bad governance. They are choosing between control and drift. Marcos is increasingly perceived as the latter.
This year exposed how shallow the administration’s reform posture truly is. Anti-dynasty bills that do not threaten real dynasties. Transparency initiatives that depend on executive permission. Anti-corruption rhetoric that collapses when allies are implicated. Marcos has attempted to manage scandals through distancing and silence. That tactic no longer works in a political environment saturated by whistleblowing, counter-accusations, and elite infighting. Silence now reads as evasion.
Meanwhile, Sara Duterte’s political posture thrives in this disorder. She benefits from being both an insider and an outsider. She is in government but not of it. She draws energy from conflict rather than credibility. She does not need to present solutions. She only needs to channel rage. In a year where institutions look compromised and Congress appears self-protecting, rage is a renewable political resource.
The implications moving forward are stark. The administration faces a shrinking window to reclaim narrative authority. Governance without trust becomes administration without power. Marcos still holds constitutional authority, but moral authority is slipping. If reform bills fail or are diluted, the public will not parse legislative nuance. They will conclude that the President either cannot or will not confront the political class that sustains him.
Sara Duterte stands to gain from this failure even if she contributes nothing constructive. Her favorability is not a reflection of approval. It is a placeholder for protest. She is becoming the vessel for discontent in a country that feels cheated by every elite promise.
This is where the danger lies. A weakened Marcos administration does not automatically produce reform. It produces volatility. Business leaders hesitate. Legislators hedge. Civil servants retreat into risk avoidance. Governance slows as politics accelerates. The louder the scandals, the more cautious decision-making becomes. The state begins to govern defensively, not decisively.
The surveys suggest that if this trajectory continues, 2026 will not be about policy debates. It will be about power realignment. Legislators will begin positioning themselves for a post-Marcos scenario. Political opportunists will amplify dysfunction. Reform will become performative because real reform carries political risk no one wants to bear.
The country is drifting toward a choice it never wanted to make. An administration entangled in corruption narratives versus an alternative defined by anger and uncertainty. This is not a healthy democratic contest. It is a symptom of elite failure.
The year ends with a sobering truth. Philippine politics is no longer about ideology or platforms. It is about credibility versus intensity. Marcos is losing credibility faster than he is gaining results. Sara Duterte is accumulating intensity without being tested by responsibility. That asymmetry favors disruption.
The next year will determine whether this republic corrects course or slides deeper into a politics where governance is secondary to survival. If Marcos cannot convert authority into decisive reform, he will continue to bleed trust. And if trust continues to bleed, the electorate will eventually reach for whoever promises control, even if that promise comes wrapped in risk.
This is not inevitability. It is a consequence. And consequences, unlike narratives, do not wait for spin.
