Leadership transitions shape the destiny of a nation—and in the Philippines, the change from President Rodrigo Roa Duterte to President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. has marked a shift in tone, policy, and governance style. This blog aims to dissect and critically assess key differences and continuities in infrastructure, OFW welfare, and political posture between the two administrations.
1. Infrastructure Development: “Build, Build, Build” vs. “Build Better More”
Duterte’s “Build, Build, Build” (BBB)
Under Duterte’s administration (2016–2022), infrastructure became the flagship strategy for economic growth. With a budget exceeding ₱8 trillion, the BBB program aimed to transform Philippine transportation, bridges, roads, and flood control.
-
Key accomplishments:
-
Over 6,000 km of roads, 2,000 bridges, 233 airport projects, and 484 seaport projects were completed under his term (as reported by the Department of Public Works and Highways).
-
Notable projects: Mactan-Cebu Expressway, Skyway Stage 3, LRT-2 East Extension, and Clark International Airport expansion.
-
-
Criticisms:
-
Some key projects were delayed or unfinished.
-
Accusations of “overpromising,” especially regarding foreign-funded infrastructure from China.
-
However, tangible outputs in terms of roads, bridges, and transport hubs were evident.
-
Marcos Jr.’s “Build Better More” (BBM)
President Marcos Jr. rebranded BBB into "Build Better More," pledging continuity and improvement. His approach includes digital infrastructure, agriculture modernization, and climate-resilient structures.
-
Key points:
-
As of mid-2025, flagship projects under BBM remain mostly planned or in early stages.
-
Focus has shifted to Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs), with foreign investors eyed to fund key projects.
-
Notable promise: North-South Commuter Railway and Digital Health infrastructure.
-
-
Critical View:
-
As of July 2025, there are few completed projects directly credited to Marcos Jr. despite three years in office.
-
Many infrastructures inaugurated under his name were already started or conceptualized during the Duterte or even Aquino era.
-
BBM remains more rhetoric than result thus far.
-
Bottom Line: Duterte built more, while Marcos Jr. plans more—a distinction that is critical when comparing outcomes versus vision.
2. OFW Welfare: Proactive Rescue vs. Hands-Off Approach
Duterte Era:
-
Known as the "OFW President", Duterte consistently prioritized Overseas Filipino Workers.
-
High-profile interventions included:
-
Saving Mary Jane Veloso (alleged drug mule in Indonesia) from execution.
-
Repatriation and legal assistance to distressed OFWs in Kuwait and the Middle East.
-
Created the Department of Migrant Workers (DMW) to consolidate OFW services.
-
Personal calls and diplomatic lobbying were common in saving OFWs from harsh penalties abroad.
-
Marcos Jr. Era:
-
The DMW continues under his administration, now led by Sec. Hans Leo Cacdac.
-
However, Marcos Jr. has taken a non-interventionist stance in judicial matters involving OFWs.
-
In some high-profile cases (e.g., OFWs sentenced abroad), the President emphasized “respect for the host country's laws” rather than direct intervention.
-
This hands-off approach has sparked criticism from migrant worker groups, accusing the administration of lack of urgency or compassion.
-
-
Additionally, welfare and repatriation support have reportedly declined in efficiency compared to the Duterte period.
Bottom Line: Duterte personally intervened for OFWs’ protection. Marcos Jr. relies on institutional processes, even at the cost of human diplomacy.
3. Governance & Political Handling
Duterte:
-
Despite political differences, Duterte blocked any attempt to impeach then Vice President Leni Robredo.
-
He publicly said, “She was elected. Let her be.”
-
-
Maintained a strongman image but at times showed strategic restraint when national unity was at stake.
Marcos Jr.:
-
Under his term, VP Sara Duterte is now facing impeachment threats, and while PBBM says the process is "constitutional," his allies are seen as leading the charge in Congress.
-
Critics point out that the President’s non-committal stance appears passive-aggressive, especially given the political nature of the move.
Bottom Line: Duterte protected political rivals, Marcos Jr. seems tolerant of moves against his own vice president—a reversal in political decency and restraint.
4. Foreign Policy
-
Duterte realigned with China and Russia, often at odds with U.S. policies, while pursuing an "independent foreign policy."
-
This approach resulted in economic pledges, though some were unfulfilled.
-
-
Marcos Jr. pivoted back to the U.S. and Japan, strengthening ties through joint military exercises and defense agreements (e.g., EDCA expansion).
-
His assertive stance on the West Philippine Sea wins praise from Western allies but increases regional tension with China.
-
5. Inflation and Food Security
-
Duterte’s administration managed relatively stable inflation, averaging 2.6% in his early term but rising during the pandemic.
-
Under Marcos Jr., inflation has become more volatile.
-
Rice prices surged despite promises of ₱20/kg rice.
-
As concurrent Agriculture Secretary in his first year, Marcos faced public backlash for failing to stabilize food supply chains.
-
Conclusion:
The comparison between Duterte and Marcos Jr. reveals a stark contrast in leadership results:
-
Duterte—though controversial—delivered infrastructure, protected OFWs, and took strong political and social stances.
-
Marcos Jr.—though diplomatic and modern in tone—has yet to deliver tangible infrastructure gains and is often seen as too cautious or disconnected in urgent matters.
While both presidents had unique contexts and challenges, results still matter more than rhetoric. The Filipino people deserve leadership that acts decisively, builds consistently, and stands boldly for every citizen, at home or abroad.
Call to Action:
As citizens, let's continue to demand transparency, measurable performance, and accountability—beyond slogans and promises. Let’s learn from the past and engage more meaningfully in shaping our national future.
