Was he merely trying to create an illusion of stability and confidence in the military amid the ongoing political noise?

At least that’s what President Marcos seemed to be implying with his recent pronouncement that there’s no need to conduct a loyalty check among military and police officials, even going to the extent of saying there’s no such thing.

In the ever-volatile landscape of Philippine politics, the relationship between the executive branch and its armed forces, as we all know, remains a cornerstone of national stability.

His recent pronouncement, therefore, that he saw no need for a loyalty check among military and police officials, despite his publicized rift with Vice President Sara Duterte, is a bold assertion of confidence. But does this reflect genuine stability or is it merely an illusion?

Historically, the loyalty of the armed forces and police has been instrumental in shaping the trajectory of political power in the Philippines. From the People Power Revolution that ousted his father, Marcos Sr., in 1986 to military-backed interventions during political crises, these institutions have played pivotal roles.

In this context, Marcos Jr.’s confidence in the stability of the political climate might seem reassuring.

However, it also raises questions about whether this confidence stems from strong institutional trust or a deliberate underestimation of emerging tensions.

The rift with Vice President Duterte is no small matter. As a scion of the Duterte political dynasty, Sara Duterte commands significant influence, particularly in Mindanao. Her abrupt resignation from the Marcos administration and subsequent criticism of it have fueled speculations about the administration’s cohesion.

While Marcos Jr. may perceive the military and police as neutral arbiters insulated from political infighting, Philippine history suggests that divisions among top officials often ripple into the ranks of these institutions.

Marcos Jr.’s statement that the political climate is “stable” deserves scrutiny. Stability, in this context, might be more an aspiration than an accurate assessment. The rivalry between the Marcos and Duterte factions has intensified, not only as a policy disagreement but also as a prelude to the 2028 presidential elections. This brewing political storm could potentially challenge the loyalty of military and police officials, especially those with allegiances to either camp.

However, the lack of a loyalty check does not automatically translate to institutional solidarity. Military and police officials, though bound by duty, are also political actors with personal and regional loyalties. The Marcos administration risks being blindsided by the subtle undercurrents of factionalism within these forces, especially if political maneuverings intensify in the lead-up to the next elections.

In a country where coups and military uprisings have historically reshaped governments, such a declaration might embolden elements within the armed forces who see the ongoing political rift as an opportunity. The President’s assurance could be perceived as complacency, particularly if dissenters within the military or police feel that their allegiance can shift without repercussion.

The dismissal of a loyalty check might also be a reaction to the dark legacy of the Marcos Sr. regime, where loyalty was often enforced through coercion rather than consensus. In distancing himself from the tactic, Marcos Jr. may be trying to foster a less authoritarian image.

Marcos Jr.’s decision not to conduct a loyalty check could also be interpreted as a strategic move to avoid exacerbating the political divide. A publicized loyalty check might signal internal instability and provide fodder for critics of the administration. By projecting confidence, the President might hope to downplay the significance of his rift with Duterte and reassure both domestic and international observers of the government’s stability.

As the rift with Vice President Duterte continues to unfold, the Marcos administration must tread carefully. The illusion of stability can only hold as long as institutional loyalties remain unwavering. In a country where political winds shift rapidly, the President’s gamble might either pay off as a masterstroke of confidence or backfire as a miscalculation of the true dynamics at play.