Former British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston famously observed: “We have not eternal allies, and we have not perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” He was echoing the realist maxim that in politics, there are no permanent friends, only permanent interests. In the volatile landscape of Philippine governance, this principle is playing out with renewed intensity.

Back in 2022, the UniTeam alliance — the Marcos-Duterte partnership — was brandished as one of the most formidable political coalitions in Philippine history. By uniting two of the country’s most powerful political clans, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. and Sara Duterte secured a landslide victory. However, that unity proved fragile. Within months, the alliance showed cracks that have since widened into a total rupture.

The political divide reached a historic peak in the first quarter of 2025. During this period, former President Rodrigo Duterte was arrested by the Philippine National Police and was flown to The Hague to stand trial after alleged extrajudicial killings.

Simultaneously, the House of Representatives filed and approved the impeachment complaints against the Vice President through a majority vote.

The pattern of shifting loyalties is now affecting the President’s inner circle. What once seemed like an unbreakable bond between cousins is fraying, as former House Speaker Martin Romualdez is now at odds with the administration.

Romualdez, who stepped down as Speaker on 17 September 2025, following his implication in the flood control scandal, recently stated in a video that the administration was “throwing him under the bus.”

Romualdez’s concern was bolstered by Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla’s recent declaration that his office will file plunder and malversation charges in May 2026 against Romualdez and former Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero.

Furthermore, the Ombudsman has strongly opposed the former House Speaker’s request to travel to Singapore for medical treatment, saying he is a flight risk. Ultimately, Romualdez believes the President may be sacrificing him to deflect the public outrage over the significant budget anomalies.

From an academic perspective, this is a classic example of “scapegoating” within a lame duck presidency. By allowing the Office of the Ombudsman to pursue plunder and malversation charges against high-profile figures like Romualdez and Escudero, the administration is attempting to distance itself from the budget anomalies and perform a moral reset before the next election cycle.

Amid these falling dominoes, one alliance has remained remarkably durable: the Marcos-Remulla partnership. This strategic tie began in 2022 when then Cavite Governor Jonvic Remulla pledged to deliver over 800,000 votes to Marcos.

Today, the Remulla clan has successfully positioned itself at the nexus of national accountability and enforcement. Boying Remulla, having stepped down as Justice Secretary, now serves as the Ombudsman, while his brother, Jonvic Remulla, leads the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG). This dual-pronged control — over the prosecution of corrupt officials and the discipline of local governments — has effectively turned the Remullas into the administration’s primary enforcers.

At the surface level, the Ombudsman’s moves against the former House Speaker, as well as the other high profile political personalities named in the investigations, can be viewed as beneficial to the administration of Ferdinand Marcos Jr., who needs to address the public’s demand to prosecute all the “big fish” involved in the 2025 corruption scandal.

The recent aggressive pursuit signals that accountability mechanisms are functioning. It also provides the administration with a narrative of action ahead of the President’s forthcoming State of the Nation Address in July 2026.

Beyond these superficial optics lies a more sophisticated political calculus — one that underscores the enduring structural realities of the Philippine polity, namely, state capture and intra-elite competition.

State capture, in this context, refers to the systematic subversion of a state’s decision-making frameworks, legislative processes and institutional apparatuses by private interests to secure parochial advantages.

By instrumentalizing public institutions — including the judiciary and oversight bodies — political actors convert state power into a tactical weapon. Consequently, these institutions are repurposed not for the public good, but as mechanisms of political warfare, deployed by the dominant elites to neutralize competitors and consolidate hegemonies.

The Remullas are far from conventional public officials. They represent a political dynasty that remains one of the most dominant forces in Cavite. After the 2025 elections, Cavite solidified its status as the second most vote-rich province in the Philippines, with approximately 2.4-million registered voters. This significant voter base grants the family immense influence over both local and national political landscapes.

By applying the frameworks of state capture and intra-elite competition, one gains a more nuanced perspective on the selective nature of political accountability in the Philippines.

This lens elucidates why former Senator Bong Revilla — a dominant political adversary in the Cavite stronghold — stood as the sole high-value target to face immediate incarceration in early 2026. Rather than a broad sweep of justice, the move appeared strategically calibrated to neutralize a regional rival.

Building on this momentum, the Remulla clan has leveraged the flood control investigation to cultivate a narrative of institutional rectitude. Their early 2026 disclosure and subsequent repudiation of a ₱P1-billion bribery attempt served as a masterclass in symbolic capital.

By positioning themselves as the incorruptible arbiters of accountability, the Remullas have effectively instrumentalized reformist optics to consolidate their standing as the indispensable enforcers of a waning presidency.

Ultimately, this leads back to a central question: Does this orchestrated surge in accountability represent a genuine pivot toward institutional reform, or is it merely a sophisticated springboard for a single clan’s long-term political hegemony?