Philippine Government Losing The Narrative – An International Perspective

The real test of 2026 is not whether the government can control the Senate or outmaneuver its rivals. The issue is no longer its falling popularity, but its plunging political legitimacy.

President Marcos Jr.'s approval and satisfaction ratings have fallen to their lowest levels since he entered office.

Surveys place his satisfaction rating near record lows, with dissatisfaction exceeding satisfaction nationally. Public trust has weakened markedly.

Governments rarely lose public confidence because of a single controversy. Rather, support erodes when citizens begin connecting multiple frustrations into a single narrative.

Here’s the Philippine version: a government elected on promises of stability, prosperity and unity now faces mounting doubts about economic management, governance and strategic direction. 

Economic plunge

The Philippine economy entered 2026 with substantial expectations. Instead, it delivered colossal disappointment.

First-quarter GDP growth slowed to only 2.8 percent, substantially below expectations and far below the growth rates that Manila once celebrated as evidence of an emerging Asian success story. Investment growth weakened, household consumption lost momentum, and confidence indicators deteriorated.

The inflation problem has returned with force. April inflation surged to 7.2 percent, driven by food, transport and energy costs. To laboring Filipinos that make most of the nation, that’s a nightmare. Since the energy crisis will linger, the Philippines could see years of progress in poverty reduction, education and living standards eroded by the economic fallout, as the UNDP recently warned.

The central bank has responded with renewed tightening warning that inflationary pressures could remain elevated for an extended period. Read: today’s nightmare can morph into tomorrow’s hell.

For ordinary Filipinos, macroeconomic statistics translate into everyday hardship. Rice, electricity, transport and fuel costs have all become more burdensome. Real wages are struggling to keep pace.

Families that briefly escaped poverty during the post-pandemic recovery are increasingly vulnerable to falling back into it. 

Energy crisis as risk multiplier

The energy situation compounds these pressures. Recently, Fitch Ratings lowered the Philippine banking sector’s outlook to “deteriorating” from “neutral.” Rising inflation and slower economic growth threaten lenders’ profitability and asset quality.

The Philippines remains among Asia's most import-dependent economies for fuel. External shocks immediately become domestic inflation.

The government's own energy-conservation measures earlier this year underscored how exposed the country remains to global disruptions.

For decades, policymakers promised energy security, industrial upgrading and reduced vulnerability. Yet the country remains trapped in a cycle where international crises rapidly become domestic economic crises.

The result is a dangerous combination: slowing growth, elevated inflation and rising insecurity.

For many Filipinos, the promised economic future appears increasingly distant.

Consent by the elites, not by the Filipinos

Against this backdrop, the administration's political strategy appears increasingly focused on elite consolidation rather than consensus persuasion.

The emerging Senate re-realignment has strengthened presidential influence over legislative processes. Critics see the Malacañang’s invisible hand and oligarchic power plays behind the “takeover of the Senate.”

Supporters describe this as necessary governance. Critics see something else: a gradual concentration of effective autocratic political power through coalition management, patronage networks and economic dependencies.

Such developments are not unique to the Philippines. Across many democracies, weakened public support often encourages governments to rely more heavily on institutional control than on broad public consensus.

The danger is that political victories can create strategic illusions. A government may dominate legislative institutions while simultaneously losing public confidence.

Control of committees, leadership positions and congressional majorities can produce short-term policy wins. They cannot by themselves restore declining trust, lower inflation or generate investment.

Political arithmetic is not economic performance.

Selective prosecution and political persecution?

Nothing illustrates the credibility challenge more clearly than the controversy over flood-control corruption.

For years, Filipinos have witnessed recurring floods, damaged infrastructure and allegations of waste involving billions of pesos in public spending. The public demand for accountability is both legitimate and necessary.

But when investigations appear selective, when prosecutions target political opponents while allies remain untouched, and when media attention focuses more on personalities than institutional failures, citizens begin questioning whether justice is being pursued or merely performed.

Such “justice” causes huge international damage.

The risk is the emergence of what critics increasingly describe as "show trials": highly visible proceedings that generate political headlines but fail to address systemic problems, again and again.

The public understands that corruption is not confined to one administration, one party or one political family. It is structural. That’s why the critics say, what must change is structural, not merely personal – and they are right.

But if investigations become instruments of factional warfare rather than impartial accountability, the result will not be institutional reform. It will be deeper popular cynicism.

And cynicism is among the most corrosive forces in any democracy.

Speaking peace, preparing conflict

The Philippines also faces growing contradictions in foreign policy. Official rhetoric continues to emphasize peace, stability and international cooperation.

Yet, coupled with the extensive military cooperation with Washington, the Marcos Jr government agreed to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi. And Japan’s most far-right leadership in decades has its own strategic plans for Manila.

As evidenced by Manila’s lost bid for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council, international observers no longer take the Malacañang peaceful rhetoric at face value.

Manila’s alignment with Washington undermined the neutrality it was selling. The government’s Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with Japan’s most far-right leadership in decades highlighted the discrepancy.

Typically, an Australian think-tank depicted the loss with President Marcos Jr’s photo and the byline: “America’s deputy sheriff” loses the UN Security Council bid.

Manila is becoming progressively entangled in conflicts not of its own making.

Contradictions no longer containable

The Philippines seeks foreign investment while operating in an environment of growing geopolitical uncertainty. It promotes economic development while devoting increasing political attention to security issues. It advocates regional stability while participating in dynamics that many observers believe are contributing to regional polarization.

Investors value stability, predictability and peace. Escalating geopolitical tensions tend to undermine all three.

When people believe elites no longer represent them, governments live on borrowed time.