Duterte Camp Sought Key Posts in Exchange for Supporting Marcos in 2022?

MANILA — President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has backed his son, House Majority Leader Sandro Marcos, after the lawmaker claimed that individuals from former President Rodrigo Duterte's camp sought control over key government positions in exchange for supporting Marcos' 2022 presidential campaign.

According to Sandro Marcos' account, the Duterte camp allegedly agreed to support Marcos' presidential bid on the condition that it would have the right to choose who would occupy three powerful positions in the incoming administration:

• Executive Secretary

• Senate President

• House Speaker

The claim was reinforced by President Marcos, who reportedly told officials that he had raised his children well and that his son would not lie.

Palace Press Officer Claire Castro relayed the President's message:

“He has raised his kids well and his son, Cong. Sandro, will not lie.”

A Political Deal Behind the 2022 Victory?

The allegation raises questions about what negotiations may have taken place between political camps before the 2022 presidential election.

Marcos and Sara Duterte ran together under the UniTeam banner, presenting themselves as a powerful political partnership that ultimately won the 2022 presidential and vice presidential elections.

Under Sandro's account, however, support from Duterte's political camp allegedly came with conditions involving some of the most influential positions in government.

The positions allegedly sought were strategically significant.

The Executive Secretary serves as one of the President's closest administrative officials, while the Senate President and House Speaker lead the two chambers of Congress.

Control or influence over those positions could potentially provide enormous political leverage within the government.

Palace: Alleged Goal Was Government Control

The Palace has gone further in interpreting the alleged arrangement.

According to Claire Castro, the Presidential Communications Office believes the alleged demand was part of an effort by the Duterte camp to gain control of the government and eventually remove President Marcos from office.

That is a serious allegation.

However, it remains important to distinguish between what has been alleged and what has been established through evidence.

Neither the identities of the individuals allegedly involved nor the existence of a formal agreement has been publicly established in the statements cited here.

Who Were the Alleged Officials?

One of the biggest questions surrounding Sandro Marcos' claim is the identity of the individuals who allegedly made the demands.

Sandro has reportedly declined to publicly name them.

That leaves a major unanswered question:

Who allegedly negotiated the arrangement?

The identities could become politically significant, particularly if any of those individuals remain active in government or continue to exercise political influence.

Until they are publicly identified and the claims independently substantiated, however, the allegations should remain treated as allegations.

The Marcos-Duterte Alliance Has Collapsed

The claims come against the backdrop of the dramatic breakdown of relations between the Marcos and Duterte political camps.

In 2022, Marcos and Sara Duterte campaigned together and won by a wide margin.

But the alliance later deteriorated.

The two camps have since clashed publicly over political alliances, government policy, congressional investigations and the impeachment proceedings involving Vice President Sara Duterte.

The current political divide is now one of the most consequential rivalries in Philippine politics.

Against that backdrop, allegations about what was supposedly negotiated before the 2022 election could have significant political implications.

Was There an Attempt to Control the Government?

The Palace's interpretation raises an even bigger question.

If the alleged agreement actually existed, was it simply a political negotiation over appointments and legislative leadership—or was it part of a broader strategy to gain control over the administration?

And if the ultimate objective was allegedly to remove Marcos from office, what evidence exists to support that conclusion?

Those questions cannot be answered simply through political statements.

They would require evidence, documentation and testimony establishing what was discussed, who participated and what was actually agreed upon.

PBBM's Message Is Clear

For now, President Marcos is standing behind his son's credibility.

The President's message, as relayed by Claire Castro, was simple:

He raised his children well, and Sandro Marcos will not lie.

That puts the administration's credibility behind the allegation.

But the political bombshell remains incomplete without the names and evidence behind it.

Who were the three officials?

Was there actually a deal?

And was the alleged objective simply to secure key positions—or ultimately to control the government and remove Marcos?

Those questions are likely to remain at the center of the growing Marcos-Duterte political battle.

KEY TAKEAWAY

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has backed Sandro Marcos' claim that individuals from the Duterte camp allegedly sought the right to choose the Executive Secretary, Senate President and House Speaker in exchange for supporting Marcos in 2022. The Palace further alleges that the effort was intended to gain control of government and eventually remove Marcos, but the identities of those allegedly involved and evidence of such a plan have not been publicly established in the statements cited.

Palace: No Impeachment Talk, Accountability Still the Line

BBM Watch

January 07, 2026•1 min read

Malacañang says President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has not discussed any possible new impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte.

According to Palace Press Officer Claire Castro, the President’s focus remains on accountability among government officials.

The clarification comes amid rising political chatter — the kind that tends to grow louder when formal discussions are absent. While impeachment is a congressional process, the executive branch appears keen to draw a line between governance and speculation.

In other words:
No conversations behind closed doors.
No shortcuts around institutions.
And no verdicts formed before processes even begin.

Accountability, the Palace says, must still walk the long road — documentation, hearings, evidence, and law. Not hashtags. Not pressure. Not noise.

As always, the Constitution does the talking. Everyone else is expected to listen.

“Let every matter be established by evidence.”
— Deuteronomy 19:15