Understanding Populist Sentiments in the Philippines under President Rodrigo Duterte’s Administration

Understanding Populist Sentiments in the Philippines Under President Rodrigo Duterte’s Administration

Karl Lester R. De Vera, MPS, LPT

Colegio San Agustin – Makati, Philippines

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.908000166

Received: 25 July 2025; Accepted: 31 July 2025; Published: 02 September 2025

ABSTRACT

This study explores the populist sentiments that emerged during the administration of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, focusing on how these sentiments were articulated and sustained among the grassroots population. Drawing from qualitative-descriptive methodologies, including semi-structured interviews and participant observation, the research investigates the public’s perception of Duterte’s governance, particularly in the context of service delivery, foreign policy, and political controversies. The paper situates Duterte’s leadership within the broader global trend of right-wing populism, characterized by anti-elitist rhetoric, strongman governance, and a binary narrative of “the people” versus “the elite.” By analyzing interviews with selected supporters and conducting a thematic coding of their responses, the study reveals that Duterte’s popularity was rooted in his performance-oriented governance style, his direct communication with the masses, and his ability to channel public grievances into political support. The findings contribute to the understanding of the populist political style in Southeast Asia and offer insights into the enduring appeal of populist leaders even amid democratic backsliding. The study also raises implications for future electoral behavior and the resilience of democratic institutions in the Philippines.

INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the description of the problem that will be addressed in this research. Essential parts include the background of the study, objectives, research questions, and relevance of the study.

Background Of The Study

After the global economic crisis of 2008, there has been a trend towards a configuration of institutions and ideologies of state-society relations with a more intensified authoritarian form. At the heart of these political changes is the rise of right-wing political and ideological forces that seek to use religious, ethnic and/ or national communities to build coalitions which are hostile to pluralist politics (Jayasuriya, 2020).

Populism is a political ideology that revolves around the idea of ​​putting people’s concerns and interests first. It often rejects traditional elites and promises radical change in response to public grievances. It is speaking to people directly, means speaking to what people want, persuasively enough to stir up emotion and support (Pieterse, 2019). Several accounts treat populism as essentially a political style of bypassing institutions and elites and addressing people directly, a “performative political style.”

One notable example of recent populism was the rise of the former President Rodrigo Duterte. The Duterte government in the Philippines has a distinctive background. The Philippines has typically been ruled by parties led by large landholding families. Land reform, long a major concern, is no longer even on the agenda. Duterte’s war on drugs shifts the agenda from political economy to security and strengthens the security forces while doing nothing to transform the political economy (Pieterse, 2019). Moreover, President Duterte became more popular to the people as the technocratic forms of government. The middle class that was so central to the forms of democratic rule that emerged after the long 90s are no longer as supportive of, and are even hostile to, these technocratic forms of governance. This has led to growing dissatisfaction and resentment, on which populist politicians and political parties have capitalized.

Populism, exemplified by the rise of Rodrigo Duterte, has had a profound impact on the Philippines. While Duterte’s tough-on-crime approach and nationalist foreign policy have resonated with some segments of the population, his administration’s human rights record and erosion of democratic institutions have been highly criticized. It is crucial to analyze and understand the positive and negative aspects of populism and Duterte’s leadership to comprehensively assess its impact. Looking towards the future, questions arise regarding the sustainability of his policies and their long-term effects on the Philippines’ political and social landscape.

This research would like to contextualize the idea of populism to the grassroots to be able to explore how PRRD was able to leave Malacañan with high trust ratings. This would also explore the sentiments of people to the government in terms of service delivery and good governance.

Objectives Of The Study

This study aims to explore and understand the populist sentiments of the Filipino people, specifically the grassroots in terms of governance, handling controversies, and foreign policy. Specifically, it explores the following research questions:

1. How do people articulate populist sentiments in the nation?
2. How do people relate the perception of effective governance?
3. How do populist sentiments sustain in the government?

Relevance Of The Study

The rise of populist leaders is a relatively new phenomenon in the 21st century. Much of the discussion by scholars and alike often revolve on policy-making. However, there is no emphasis on the supporters who adhere to these politicians and their ideals. Considering that these voters propelled them in ascending to the executive chamber. In this study, the attention is given to the pulse and sentiments of those who supported President Duterte during his term in office. This approach will allow the researchers to investigate as to why the ex-president was able to step down from the presidency with a high trust rating. This is going to be helpful also in analyzing the dynamics of the current administration especially that the current Vice President Sarah Duterte is a daughter of ex-President Duterte.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter reviewed relevant and related literature of various researches both foreign and local in an attempt to relate their work to this study. These related studies that were found are shown to be the basis for pursuing this study

Populism

Populism started in the 1940’s and is a term endeared by some as enlivening and synonymous with hope, but also a term that strikes horror to those you would least expect to. “For the many, not the few,” a perspective that highlights the needs of the people and their rights amidst oppression committed against them by “the corrupt elite” (Molloy, 2018). Usually, populism strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups. It seeks to defend the interests of ordinary non-elite citizens along with maximizing their power. In short, a populist regime’s main interest is that of the people, in the perspective of the common good. Thus, this is generally viewed as favorable towards the vast majority but not to the economic-driving elite, an “Us vs Them” narrative. Think of populism as social media’s very influential “cancel culture”, sharing the same “Us vs Them” mentality: “Us” (common people), versus “Them” (the elite) (ECPS, n.d). We also see how individuals and political parties leverage popular opinion to gain the approval of the majority. By understanding this, we can further see why populism is a popular political theme that recurs in political parties and strategies.

In the “Us vs Them” narrative, a wide range of political stances is involved in the championing of the common people in opposition to “the elite”, often depicted as a homogeneous entity that only functions to fulfill its interests through corrupt, abusive, and immoral actions that deprive the populace.  In contrast, “the people” are generally portrayed as a force of moral good. Often, populist parties and movements are headed by a dominant, charismatic leader who acts as the ordinary people’s spokesperson and utilizes populism as a way to obtain power by appealing to their gripes and struggles with elite groups. Typically, these populist leaders will antagonize certain political, economic, and media establishments as part of the powerful elite, while also dictating who can and cannot be considered part of “the real people” by denouncing people whose opinions differ from their own, thus excluding them from their morally superior collective (ECPS, n.d).  According to populism expert Cas Mudde, the contrast between the supposed moral superiority of the people and the moral inferiority of the elite is the key distinction that fuels populist ideology; it discredits the elite as a corrupt entity that comprises the virtuous and pure people, therefore delegitimizing them as opponents. This type of political approach is prevalent in Southeast Asia because of the numerous societal issues and family lineages.

In the tapestry of political ideologies and governance, one thread has woven itself into the fabric, stirring both fervent support and ardent opposition: Populism. This philosophy promises empowerment for the people against the perceived power and retaliation of the elite (ECPS, n.d.). It is opposed to forms of government that would give titles and power to people who are wealthy or of high social status, going against the likes of aristocracy, plutocracy, or elitism. (PHILO-Notes, 2022). This appeals to both left and right-leaning parties who see current leaders as unresponsive and unaccountable regarding political and economic concerns (De Witte, 2020). Many disputes regarding this ideology revolve around populist groups vilifying other opponents in order to establish their own power as their claim to embody the common people (Munro, 2023). The rise of populist leaders is marked by charismatic personas and strategic use of rhetoric portraying them as champions of the common people against a vague higher power. Leaders in the Philippines, both historical and contemporary, use rhetoric that resonates with Filipinos, addressing issues like poverty, corruption, inequality, and national identity— things that significantly shape the nation’s narrative. This underscores a political dynamic wherein the manipulation of public sentiment plays a significant role in establishing authority. Moreover, populism can also be described as a strategy employed by poor individuals to achieve their objectives, with politicians often aligning with their supporters but ultimately not supporting them. It combines elements of the left and the right, opposing large business and financial interests but also frequently being hostile to established liberal, socialist, and labor parties.

Populism is further distinguished into two varieties: left populism and right populism. Left populism, also referred to as social populism, is a belief that merges left-wing politics and populist rhetoric, promoting anti-elitist ideologies, challenging the status quo where wealth determines social standing, and providing an outlet for people to voice out and act on their concerns. While socialist theories and class society ideologies are more significant to the conventional left-wing populist, anti-capitalism, social justice, pacifism, and anti-globalization are the general complications that left-winged populist face. (ECPS, n.d). On the other hand, right populism, also known as national populism, combines right-wing politics and populist rhetoric, which comprises anti-elitist views, hostility to the perceived “establishment”, and speaking to the “ordinary people”. Though both left and right populism criticize the elite’s alleged hold over liberal democracies, left-wing populism also challenges the influence of big corporations and its advocates, while right-wing populism typically favors meticulous immigration laws. (ECPS, n.d.).

Left wing populism frequently supports anti-elitist views, dislikes the establishment, and speaks on behalf of the “common people” according to European Center for Populism Studies (n.d). While socialist theories and class society ideologies are less significant to standard left-wing parties, anti-globalization, which is an opposition to the rise in international trade by large companies and the consequences for the environment and society, social justice, and pacifism which is resistance to using force or battle to resolve conflicts are usually the important themes for left-wing populists. Those that are on the left have versions on how populists set “the people” versus “elite society” logic. They often argue that neoliberalism is to blame for a wide range of social and economic issues. According to Manning, L. (2022), Neoliberalism is a form of policy that integrates economics and politics. It is intended to move economic factor control from the public to the private sector, favoring private enterprise. The “people” are the “precariat,” the working class, regular people with moral character, and welfare recipients while the “elite society” includes neoliberals, professionals, capitalists, right-wing media, right-of-center political parties, IMF, and World Bank according to Karlson, N. (2023).  In view of this rhetorical system of neoliberalism, it was the deregulations, tax cuts and privatizations that started in the 1980’s that caused the issues of the outcomes like inequality, a precariat, etc., within the healthcare and education sectors. The idea that neoliberalism has made it possible for large international companies to utilize the government, particularly in the US, to further their own agendas runs throughout these constructs of left wing populism, an example is Cayla, 2021. According to Karavasilis, L. (2018), left-wing populism has helped make each nation’s political institutions more welcoming to formerly marginalized or excluded groups (minorities, indigenous people, etc.). And regardless of its commercial achievements or shortcomings, it has played a significant role in creating a political climate that is more democratic. Because of the so-called “pink tide,” this has come to be seen as the distinctive effect of left-wing populism in the twenty-first century.

According to the European Center for Populism Studies (n.d.), Right wing populism is the term used to describe political parties and politicians known for their opposition to immigration. This term is also associated with ideologies such as anti-environmentalism, neo-nationalism, anti-globalization, nativism, and protectionism. Similar to Left Wing Populism, this ideology consists of anti-elitist concepts, perceiving the opposing “establishment” as those who conflict with the ideals of “the people”. Both sides are opposed to the perception of having the control of liberal democracies in the hands of the elites. However, while left wing populism focuses on objecting the power of large corporations, right wing populism instead focuses on the support of a strong control on immigration.

According to an article from ECPS (European Center for Populism Studies) a certain group called “The Elite ” are the ones that use populism. “The Elite” are a small group of people who hold a disproportionate amount of wealth, privilege, political power, or skill in a society. Defined by the Cambridge Dictionary, “the elite ” are the types of people or organizations that are considered or known to be the more powerful compared to others in a similar way. The “power elite” is a term that is used to describe a small or loosely connected group of individuals who dominate policy making.

According to Marte Mangset, Fredrik Engelstad, Mari Teigen, Trygve Gulbrandsen, Elite groups are a necessity for a well-functioning democracy, this can be backed up by the Elite Democracy which is a group of people who has control over the political power. Elites emerged due to the population being either uneducated or not being able to hold a position/responsibility like them resulting in elites always having this huge wealth and power over the people, this is called the Elitist Theory. Robert Micheals, a prominent elite theorist have created views and other elitist theorists that have shaped the Elitists Theory, one example being, “The Iron Law of Oligarchy” in context, this means democratic institutions will soon all be oligarchies, through the development of the leaders that the democracy needs, these leaders would want to attain this influence becoming more powerful. (StudySmarter, n.d)

According to Your CommonWealth (2023), social media has become a “playground” for modern generations. It serves as a place of entertainment, social interactions, and even a platform for education. Although it has its good influences (productive, educational, and comedic contents), there will always be the bad influences (discriminating, offensive, and destructive contents) that will raise a portion of the youth. Social media’s impact and effects on people are not only emotional and habitual but also spiritual and physical, which makes a content ever so important to be regulated and carefully posted, because one content can be enough to fuel the next actions of an individual. With this said, multiple public figures and public servants are seen on social media, either posting announcements or posting comments about certain situations. This will affect their image, every word, and every point they try to make; This shows taking advantage of sensitivity regarding public issues and political concerns. Another point worth noting is the influences hidden in plain sight: youth vote. Relatable contents and comedic trends, both can either be seen with millions of likes or fewer – and with both, the creators probably gained either a ton of followers or less. The easy control of a population by using common preferences and experiences are what most public figures do, and with this idea, a spotlight is pointed — what if a government official is using this tactic to catch the attention of young voters, drawing them into a dubious world of conspiracy or transparency?

The Covid-19 pandemic has had its effects on plenty of things especially concerning the government. Populism, a type of government, has several effects on people due to the pandemic. According to an article on link.springer.com (2023), there has been some proof of groups of populists initially having unsure responses to the pandemic. The article focuses on an experiment they started to study how this type of government has affected people during the Covid-19 pandemic. The attitudes of the populists seem to make their own point of view of said pandemic, talking about both how they have felt affected when concerning their health and how they react to policies/ideas that fight back the spread of the virus. Then comes the concept of  “The Populist Divide”.  Populism focuses on the opposition between ‘the people’ and ‘the elite’.

Populism is about people, it’s a political program for the common folk. It is a good cause taken too far, affecting not just the elites who are corrupt, but also the ones with no malicious intentions. Populism can have good outcomes, such as lesser inequality between rich and poor. However, some populist politicians use controversial strategies to rile up the public and turn them against institutions and leaders they see as part of the “elite”, and may furthermore cause divisions in a society and make it more difficult for individuals to collaboratively solve problems. The inability of elites and governments to address fundamental problems in their society creates an environment where populism can thrive. Different forces work in cross-class alliances in specific situations to produce populist movements. This explains why it can be used to advance long-suppressed demands for social justice and wealth redistribution in some situations, while in other cases, it effectively serves to safeguard the interests of established oligarchies by refocusing these demands on politics of culture and identity.

The people are also able to take advantage of the common interests and experiences they share with each other. This creates an environment where influence can easily be attained, sharing common ideals on areas such as political matters, social welfare and justice. An extreme side of this where one’s interest rules over the common good, influencing them under the guise of serving the best interest of the majority. According to a chapter in the book titled “Communicating Populism” (Hameleers et al., 2019), the main method used in influencing the people is through cognitive priming of one’s social identity. According to the same book, the focus of a populist’s messages in the political arena focuses on the “binary divide” between the “good people” and the “elites”. The people, in turn, experience the deprivation of certain groups’ causes, with their own voices drowned out by the “ideals of the majority”.

In some situations, populists drive a “contagion effect” on other mainstream parties in the political system. It could polarize the focus of debate and increase the prominence of certain issues. On the other hand, populism could also increase participation and trust by voters. It could lead to more voters being passionate on political issues or matters affecting the political party. But in some instances, it could lead to encouragement to disengage because of their belief that the political system is not worthy. Others have concluded that populism fuels political discontent due to the support on the elites.

Throughout American history, populism has played a significant and long term role. There has always been a struggle between the “ordinary and the “elites”, dating back to the early republican years. However, a group known as “the people’s party”, or simply populists, played a significant influence in national politics at the end of the 19th century, promoting democratic outcomes. During the 1892 election, they were given an opportunity to compete against corruption. They strive for greater democratization in society. Regaining the status quo, or the current state of affairs and the collective of individuals capable of bringing about improvements, was an objective espoused by populists. The People’s Party has created a big impact on the history of America. They sought to lessen the economic inequalities that capitalism was causing and wanted to limit the influence of businesses on election outcomes. They aspire to protect and maintain democracy by rendering it to be more inclusive and equitable. Citizens become more involved in governmental affairs as a result. Delegating decision-making authority from the government to the various societal classes.

According to Stanford University’s article (2017), to the mind of the people, the essence of populism is that it is: Anti elitist, condemning the corrupt dominance of established elites whose interests do not align with the majority of the people. And also Plebiscitary, favoring mass mobilization of the popular majority, and a direct relationship between the populist leader or movement and the people, rather than the indirect filters of public opinion through representative democracy that the American constitutional founders favored as a check on the potential for “tyranny of the majority.”

If that is all that populism is at a minimum, then it is possible to argue that it is not all bad, and that there are times in the history of democracy when a certain dose or impulse of populism can have a tonic effect in promoting needed economic and institutional reforms that break up monopolies, redistribute power and income, attenuate injustices, and invite new grassroots forms and sources of political participation that are not inconsistent with liberal democracy and may actually invigorate it.

And also to add According to Stanford University’s article (2017), populism becomes a threat to liberal democracy (at least) when it is culturally exclusionary (not to mention racist); when it yields to its hegemonic pretensions, exhibiting contempt for pluralist notions that intrinsically respect differences and opposition; and obviously when it seeks to restrict basic freedoms of the press, association, and so on.  But because populism is intrinsically majoritarian and plebiscitary, it poses some intrinsic dangers for democracy, even when it is not peddling prejudice against cultural minorities.  These can be exacerbated by populism’s suspicion of established institutions and its tendency to want to work around them or blow them up.  Populism presents some dilemmas for democracy, and this is one:  Sometimes democracies grow stale and occluded and need reform, but if populist reform sentiment runs amok, it can so damage the existing institutions that it destabilizes democracy itself.

According to (PhùNg, 2022), “Populism”, as a political ideology and sociopolitical movement is a trend that provokes major political and social upheavals. There is a growing body of evidence indicating that populism is a factor causing instability. Such as Vietnam where populism is defined in their own way based on their politics. The term “Populism” in Vietnam has been a new concept so far, which does not exist in the original sense. Therefore this would have some impacts on Vietnam politics, which has no economic or political-social basis in populism, it only exists as a form of opinions and thoughts. While it does not develop a system of reasoning and manifest in the words and actions of people, these negative effects have a number of solutions that put a restraint on the threat of populism. One of the solutions would be in a book titled: “The thematic paper on today’s populism” (Võ Văn Hải ,2019), it points out several noteworthy issues and suggestions to prevent the risk of populism in Vietnam. Accordingly, to defend against populism, the most important thing is to raise consciousness about populism as well as taking account of some acute problems.

Voices of the Masses: Philippine Populism

The Philippines certainly has influential populists who have changed the course of the country. Despite mixed outlooks on the concept, populists have gone beyond expectations, with some managing to reach the presidency. Populist government leaders that have achieved that level are Rodrigo Roa Duterte, Joseph Estrada, BongBong Marcos, and Ferdinand Marcos Sr. These are simply a few names that are greatly known as populists in the Philippines.

Marcos Sr. was one of the earliest examples of Populist leaders in the Philippines, and his term lasted from 1965-1986. His quick rise to power as president was marked by great accomplishments in his first term in areas such as agriculture, infrastructure, law and order, and foreign relations, as well as other ambitious plans that helped him gain support from the people and from important figures in the government (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2024). In his second term, or his reign over the Philippines under martial law, he used this momentum to solidify his regime and the power he held over the country, leading to initial support for the imposition of martial law. The justifications for this were civil unrest and conflict against communists. Those who supported Marcos throughout this phase, including military officers, politicians, and businessmen, helped him grow more powerful and were rewarded by the administration, while those who scrutinized and showed dissatisfaction with his rule were imprisoned, abused, or killed (New World Encyclopedia, 2022). Marcos assumed office with a commitment to fostering economic development through infrastructure enhancements and implementing land reforms aimed at improving the lives of his constituents, garnering admiration and widespread praise. However, as his presidency unfolded, human rights abuses and corruption cast a dark shadow over his leadership. Marcos declared martial law in 1972 to tighten his grip on the country and control over government functions, asserting that it was necessary for maintaining order and stability in the country. This decision, though initially accepted by some, raised concerns about the erosion of democratic principles and the concentration of power in the hands of a single leader. Despite the justifications provided, martial law enabled Marcos to extend his rule beyond the constitutional limits, leading to a prolonged period of authoritarian governance. The Filipino people in the years to come witnessed a crackdown on political dissent, media censorship, and an increase in human rights violations, further tarnishing Marcos’s populist reputation both nationally and internationally. The turning point came in 1986 when the Filipino people, fueled by discontent and a desire for change, initiated the People Power Revolution. Mass protests and the support of key military figures eventually led to Marcos’s departure from the Philippines and into exile. The revolution marked the end of Marcos’s complex and controversial regime, highlighting the resilience of the people in their pursuit of democracy and justice (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.). Secondly, Currently, Bongbong Marcos, as president of the Philippines, exemplifies the prevalence of populism in the country. His involvement in intriguing and controversial presidential elections underscores the significant impact of populism on political dynamics. The influence of populism extends beyond individual candidates, shaping opinions within political parties and potentially swaying voters’ choices towards leaders whose personal agenda is not in line with the best interests of the ordinary people. Speculations surrounding Bongbong Marcos’ rise to politics, that of which is linked to his father, former President Ferdinand Marcos, and the legacy his regime left on the country and it’s history, may suggest connections to corruption and media influence. There are other theories on why he was chosen for his role as president, but the majority all lead to his family’s actions towards the Filipino community to influence them and gain their support, showing his exploitation of the phenomenon of populism. The presidential election of 2022 shows how the majority of the voters of Bongbong Marcos are less fortunate and educated, as they believe BBM could return to the once so-called “Golden era” of the Philippines. This leads to the question of how the son of a dictator won the national elections and how their party utilized alliances with other political families such as that of Sara Duterte-Carpio, daughter of former president Rodrigo Duterte. The pivotal role of populism in Marcos’ electoral success, with voting factors influenced by the experiences of the electorate, particularly those under 30, who did not witness his father’s era marked by human rights violations and economic slowdowns, and were thus more easily influenced by the campaign strategies of Marcos. Despite accusations of fraud and unpaid taxes, populism has shifted the narrative toward the positive aspects of Marcos; a controversial story, resonating with those seeking change disillusioned by previous administrations’ failures to solve issues such as poverty, weak infrastructure, and corruption.  This is a reflection of the past election experiences of the Filipinos and the use of populism in swaying the public opinion and voting choice in favor of Marcos (Lim, 2022).

A Philippine president should serve the country for six years to complete an administration. However, president Joseph Estrada or also known as “Erap” served as the president of the Philippines from 1998-2000, wherein he did not complete his term. When Estrada began politics in 1968, he ran successfully for the mayorship of the city of San Juan, a position he held until 1986., then he was elected to the senate in 1969. Estrada stood for president in 1998, but his candidacy was heavily criticized. Ramos, who was legally forbidden to compete for a second term as president, supported then House Speaker José de Venecia, while many of the country’s most influential businesses opposed Estrada’s populist ideals. The electoral margin of victory was one of the largest in an open election in Philippine history, and the Congress officially named Estrada president of the Philippines on May 29, 1998. In the same year, he organized a populist “pro-poor” movement, garnering a significant audience. In addition, “Politics of Sincerity in Metro Manila” has additional examples of the populist acts that Joseph Estrada was involved in. The reason those in poverty believed in John Estreda was discovered to be his honesty and commitment to maintaining their standards. While withstanding the positions of vice president, senator, and mayor of San Juan City, Estrada was certainly “Flaunting the low”, but his pro-poor stance was void of any Manichean worldview or anti-elite prejudice, and it produced minimal ways of tangible policies except for his campaign’s catchphrase, which was “Erap para sa mahirap”, or in english, “Estrada for the poor” (Kreuzer, 2020). He is like any other Filipino politician who guaranteed the underprivileged a better life in return for their support and votes, and especially popular with the poor community. The less privileged accepted Joseph Estrada’s sincerity in his political accomplishments as they matched their expectations that could be reasonably demonstrated over time. This is an example of a political victory which  can also be demonstrated to be diffuse, enduring, and objective. However, Estrada’s presidency was short lived, as controversy arose in October 2000 when a fellow lawmaker of his claimed that Estrada had laundered millions of pesos in bribes. The senate launched an impeachment trial against Estrada, but it was called off by certain senators who objected to the inclusion of evidence against Estrada. Despite the evidence, Estrada was removed from office as widespread rallies were taking place on January 20, 2001, which put pressure on the government to have him impeached. Later that year, Estrada was convicted of allegations of plundering and accused of obtaining $80 million dollars worth of bribes and illicit activities. Estrada refuted the allegations, claiming they were politically driven, and he reasonably remained prominent in the Philippines despite the allegations held against him. Thus, in September of 2007, he was convicted of plunder and sentenced to a maximum of 40 years in prison, thus, his term of presidency was not continued. Due to the massive wave of outcry from the Filipino people at the time, which was some of the largest since the People Power Revolution in 1986 and culminating into the Second EDSA Revolution, the pressure it put on the government, and Estrada having less of the power and influence he needed to put his impeachment at bay, he was successfully brought to justice for his crimes.

Another prominent example of this power can be seen in the tenure of former president Rodrigo Duterte. Over the course of his six-year presidency in the Philippines, many controversies surrounded his administration. While the specific controversial actions are not all proven to be the result of corruption or malice, there were major controversies in Duterte’s reign that are still subject to great scrutiny due to their effects. The War on Drugs in the Philippines is one of the campaigns of Duterte that sparked controversy, as the aggressive strategy the former president took led to the deaths of over 12,000 Filipinos. According to the Human Rights Watch (2016), the police have falsified evidence to justify unlawful killings. Despite growing calls for investigation, Duterte had vowed to continue the campaign, by which he did so until the end of his term. Additionally, one of his biggest campaign promises was to annihilate government corruption that has been a quandary for many years, yet there have been numerous situations wherein government officials were caught in actions of corruption during his term. For instance, the “pastillas” scandal, wherein a bribery scheme occured in the Philippines, involving officials from the Bureau of Immigration allowing foreign travelers to enter the country without background checks for a fee. This money would be rolled up in pieces of white paper resembling local sweets. At least 40 people were indicted due to this scandal, chief among them being deputy commissioner Marc Red Mariñas (Garcia, 2022). Aside from this, just two weeks before he officially ended his term as Philippine president, Duterte, known to be a gun enthusiast, registered at least 358 firearms, with permits that will last for the next 10 years and legal backing through a law he enacted in 2022. 72 handguns identified as being registered under Duterte are said to have an estimated value of P5.5 million (Buan, 2023). Despite this controversy, however, Duterte managed to successfully finish his term as president and achieve many of his personal agenda and agenda for the public, as he was able to walk the fine line between performing controversial activities and unleashing the dissatisfaction and anger of the people that could lead to a forceful shift in government order.

In recent years, there have been several effects that populism has had on the Philippines. The failure of 4 successive presidents after Corazon Aquino’s term of office (1986-1992) to translate the post-authoritarian dream of the people to have a better socio-economic and political life into reality led the Filipino people to search for leaders that had the large ambition and goal of addressing many of these issues. In 2018, 2 years after Duterte’s election, poverty decreased from 23.3% percent in 2015 to 16.7%, lifting up 6.1 million Filipinos out of absolute poverty. In the same year, the Moro Islamic Liberation Movement (MILF), one of the major Muslim secessionist movements in Mindanao, was bestowed with the right to rule over their land through their own autonomous government with the ratification of Republic Act (RA) No. 11054, otherwise known as the “Organic Law for the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao” (OLBARMM) or simply the Bangsamoro Organic Law (BOL). The OLBARMM was subsequently approved through a plebiscite in 2019. This signifies the cessation of armed conflict between the MILF and government’s armed forces which have been in war for 42 years and under six (6) presidents (Buendia, 2024). However, the controversial and authoritarian tactics of Duterte’s regime have created controversy. The war on drugs, which had resulted in thousands of extrajudicial killings and human rights violations, has been a central pillar of Duterte’s platform and a key promise that led to the people supporting him. Such situations are all classified under the phenomenon of “hyper-presidentialism”, wherein the president controls more of the government than the other people in the branches of government, especially in terms of budget management. They can subordinate the legislature, the courts, and independent bodies, despite supposedly being coequal branches of government or constitutionally mandated agencies, establishing the President’s authority as nearly omnipresent throughout the state apparatus (Kenes, 2023). Unfortunately, the popularity of a president like Duterte among the people allowed the tides to turn in favor to President Duterte’s violent administration, or as of today, the administration of Bongbong Marcos, son of former dictator Ferdinand Marcos, instead of possibly supporting the other candidates who could reform the country for the better. Duterte and Marcos Jr., have both exploited false left-wing populism, gaining favor from the people, but really only to pursue personal  powerful people who do not support his administration and decisions and those among the ordinary people that criticize him, instead of reducing corruption and improving the state of the country, which was not achieved due to a lack of implemented programs and programs which have not had any benefits on the country as a whole. This emphasizes how the Philippines needs to vote for and and elect its leaders more wisely, for people are now choosing leaders with the most promises instead of focusing on the individuals who have reasonable goals, experience and qualifications, or past success as public servants. In a way, the country is going backwards in terms of the qualification of its leaders, as populist leaders take advantage of different social issues to promote themselves as a person who can solve such issues all at once, gaining the almost unwavering support and trust of the people. Duterte has effectively used populist rhetoric to connect with the masses. He often speaks in a direct and informal manner, using language that resonates with ordinary Filipinos. He addresses their concerns, particularly regarding poverty, inequality, and national identity. The Anti-Establishment Stance: Dutertismo positions itself as a movement against the perceived elite or establishment. Duterte portrays himself as a champion of the common people, promising to address their needs and fight against corruption and inequality. The recently published book, “The Rise of Duterte,” focuses on analyzing new populism in Asia, which in turn benefits the Philippines by realizing their failures of past and historical events for the future, which have failed to change up until this day. The author of the book argues that Rodrigo Duterte becoming the president of the Philippines in 2016 happened as a result of dissatisfaction with the way the country was being run by political elites in the past three decades. Duterte’s rise is seen as a reaction to the perceived failures of the elite democratic system and one of many examples of democratic decay and democratic fatigue. The author notably stresses that only did the public support Duterte as they were discontented with the post-Marcos “elite democracy”, wherein it miserably failed to live up to its initial promises of social justice and sustainable development; this discontentment is called “grievance politics.” (Asian Century Institute, 2018). Last but not least, Controversial Statements and Policies: Duterte’s statements and policies have often sparked controversy both domestically and internationally. His blunt and sometimes offensive remarks have drawn criticism, while his policies, such as the declaration of martial law in certain regions, have raised concerns about human rights and democratic institutions.

Populism is a force in politics that has the potential to be successful but may occasionally pose issues for people with authority and the populace. In many countries, including the Philippines, populism positions itself as a champion of the common people, standing up to the wealth and power of the elites. In the country, populism has been proved to be a double-edged sword, encompassing both advantages and disadvantages, providing a platform for leaders to rise to power by capitalizing on public dissatisfaction. Rodrigo Duterte’s term, during which activities portrayed as a response to the perceived failures of previous administrations were performed, gave rise to significant controversies, particularly the War on Drugs. Duterte is renowned for his exceptional communication abilities, which helped develop his connections worldwide. Bongbong Marcos’ rise to power, which can be quite shocking considering his family’s history and the legacy they have left, stresses the short term and lasting effects of populism. Despite populist leaders facing allegations of fraud and controversies, populism remains a significant force in shaping political narratives, as leaders continue to exploit it in order to accumulate support. Capitalized upon by politicians, populism can lead to rhetoric over substance, where promises overshadow tangible policy outcomes. The prevalence of populist leaders mirrors a broader societal change where voters, especially the less privileged, are drawn to charismatic leaders who brand themselves as champions of the people, promising transformative initiatives and changes on a great scale. The consequences of populism taking hold of our country, including hyper-presidentialism and the diminishing or weakening of democratic norms, raise concerns about the long-term health of Philippine democracy. Ultimately, as Jim Hightower stated, “populism is not about ‘left vs right,’ but ‘people vs the powerful.”.

Populism in Thailand and Indonesia

Populism within Southeast Asia has encountered an exponential growth throughout recent years. Such populists are renowned leaders, who are usually attempting to win power, through their barbaric and straightforward way of dealing crime within the country (Kurlantzick, 2018). Populism unavoidably adds risks to democratic systems, frequently due to its tendency to oversimplify complex issues. The natural tendency to provide overly simple answers result in poorly thought out policies that ignore the underlying causes of the social issues. Populist leaders’ degradation of accepted norms and institutions puts at risk democratic rule by reducing the checks and balances that are ultimately needed for preserving a sound political system. Though understudied, Indonesia is a prime candidate for populism. Indonesia is facing the endemic problem of corruption and massive social inequality, however, it has consistently maintained the appearance that it is still a democratic country. Indeed, considering the fact that companies and their cronies control political parties, elections continue to be open and free. Before delving into the topic, we must be aware of “Pancasila”, which is better known as the five guiding principles of Indonesia. The principles believe that there is a one and only god, a just and civilized humanity, a united Indonesia, a life led by democracy, deliberation by the people, and social justice. With these taken into mind, it would be easier to understand the populist strategies and tactics which will be further discussed later on.  In 2014, two candidates with very different political philosophies faced off in Indonesia’s presidential election. This election was majorly religio-cultural, and only two people and ideals had the majority’s attention. Dubbed a “polite” or “technocratic” populist stood Joko Widodo who ran a campaign against the establishment by presenting himself as a likable “man of the people” who supported reforms for the poor and had a proven ability to accomplish goals. His opponent Prabowo, went with a classic exemplar which was anti-foreign rhetoric (specifically anti-Chinese), neo-authoritarian and appealing to the poor (Mietzner & Marcus, 2015). Though the reason for the win of Jokowi was his inclusive and non confrontational campaign. Unlike Prabowo who went off as quite aggressive, he remained calm. Going back to Pancasila, it states there that they believe in a “life led by democracy”, which is what Prabowo failed to show. It also states that they believe in social justice which is strongly seen in Jokowi’s campaign, but not in Prabowo’s. If we look into it, Prabowo’s campaign disagrees with most of the principles of Pancasila, which is most likely what led to his downfall. Despite the tries of Prabowo, even going as far as enforcing an argument of Jokowi being a Singaporean-Chinese therefore making him an unfit candidate, the influence of Jokowi clearly had the upper hand here especially from what had been discussed earlier. Another incident of populism was shown in the corruption and militarization of West Papua, an Indonesian province. Before the 2024 election, many government officials have tried to postpone the election polls due to the possibility of a negative economic downturn. Muhaimin Iskandar, the Deputy Speaker of the People’s Representative Council, recommended extending the presidential tenure. Several cabinet ministers suggested extending the presidential term from two five-year tenures to a maximum of 15 years of service. Delaying the election and aiming for the current president to run once again allows their position of power to be in their hands for an extended period. Joko Widodo introduced populist platforms after a disliked leader known for his ‘hesitant and lethargic’ leadership finished his term in 2014, supporting the people with the idea of overruling elite influence and eradicating the inadequacies of the bureaucracy. Prabowo Subianto, also applied populist tactics and gained followers from conservative Islamists and different sectors of the military. Eventually, these populist tactics led to polarization among the two parties and their followers. According to political scientist Eve Warburton, this polarization gradually loses any trace of a concrete political vision and simply boils down to the denouncement of the other camp as an existential threat (as cited in Lazarus, 2022). Tapsell, a social media expert, also points out that because of all this, their followers did not know what the outcome would be if either party won. Their primary goal was to prevent the opposition from winning (Lazarus, 2022).

Populism is not just evident in Indonesia, but as well as in another Southeast Asian country, Thailand. Its political system is marked by coups, a monarchy, and alternate military and civilian administrations. Populist groups have emerged in reaction to issues with democratic governance, inequality, and corruption.In Thailand, the prevalent understanding of populism appears to be based on an outdated definition developed in the 1990s by conservative economists located in the United States. As Thailand navigates its political change, an accurate knowledge of populism within its distinct political terrain is critical. Thai citizens and observers may be better equipped to distinguish between sound economic policies and populist tactics that could endanger the country’s fragile institutions if populism is redefined as more than just the use of popular economic policies. Thaksin Shinawatra created the Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party, which emerged victorious in 2001’s parliamentary elections. This serves as a  symbolism that Thailand was parting ways from the traditional ways of the said nation. However, some state that there is simply nothing new under this sun. Drawing backing from Thailand’s affluent business elite, Thaksin, a Sino-Thai from Chiang Mai, developed a constituency among up-country people in northern and northeastern Thailand. His party’s appeal in rural areas stemmed from its dedication to financing education, granting loan funds, transferring control to local governing bodies, and offering accessible medical care. For the first time in an open election in Thailand, the TRT secured an absolute majority of seats in the legislature in 2005. But in the end, Thaksin’s actions damaged his authority and created a political crisis. One example of this was his use of military force to quell an insurrection in southern Thailand without seeking out democratic alternatives. Thaksin’s downfall was caused by his readiness to influence lawmakers and oversight organizations to save his and his family’s fortune. The People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), an opposition group, organized protests in Bangkok that grew larger in scope. In an attempt to gauge support in the countryside, Thaksin called a hasty election. However, opposition parties boycotted the poll, and the Supreme Court later ruled that the results were void. (Britannica, n.d.)

Moreover, there is also the Pheu Thai (PT) Party in Thailand. Meaning “For Thais”, it is the third incarnation of a Thai political party founded by former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. It is Thailand’s current majority ruling party and was established on September 20, 2007. They mostly appeal to the rural and urban poor. (Pheu Thai Party, 2007). This was said to  happen after a “coalition with military junta proxy parties after initially backing the  reformist Move Forward party” (EAF editors, 2023). Because the party is not particularly  good in the court of public opinion, an analysis based on polls, the party has been  regarded as taking a political risk. This could cause infighting within Srettha’s new  government. And because there are elements of the royalist-militarist elite maintaining  an interest in instability, the situation remains uncertain.By 2011, Thaksin’s sister, Yingluck was able to have a seat at the parliament under the party Pheu Thai and then went on to implement a rice pledging scheme. In simpler terms, the plan was to purchase rice from farmers at a higher price than what they could get in the market, all so as to support the income of farmers. Unfortunately, the program had a lot of problems,  like poor management, and cost about 500 million baht according to some estimates. Yingluck was later declared guilty of negligence in court. (Thongnoi, 2023).

Populism is not an ideology, rather is it a plan of action performed in order to gain and retain power (Cox, M., 2018). It promises democratic renewal by introducing new actors and policies into the political systems, yet is a main factor leading to the breakdown of democracy which reverts to dictatorship. It manipulates the emotions of the voters by using their desperation against them through false agendas and promises. A particular instance that relates to this could be the Philippines’ People Power Revolution that highlighted the courageous overthrow of the dictatorial regime of President Ferdinand Marcos. Emotions played a central role in mobilizing the masses, with Corazon C. Aquino’s rally triggering significant economic impacts through boycotts. Marcos, in response, manipulated emotions by threatening martial law. (Official Gazette, n.d.) Manipulation is also observed in the use of digital repression tools in Indonesia. There is employment of measures such as extra surveillance and internet shutdown which limit freedom of expression and participation in public discourse. All this, to protect political image, manipulating information and silencing opposing voices. (Holbig, H., 2024). The struggles of the poorest of the poor are highlighted in this “ideology” and is used as a campaign method that boosts their platform, but sufficient actions don’t occur after the campaign season, leaving them stranded (Silva et al., 2022). This phenomenon roots back to the voters’ behaviors, and how the masses vote with their stomachs, which then roots back to the broken system they’re forced to live in. Populism isn’t solely the issue, yet it opens a plethora of issues that affect each member of the community. In a progressive country, there shouldn’t be citizens left behind, yet in the hands of populists this becomes difficult to achieve. The further division of the nation is what populists want to achieve, but the unison between each member is what the nation needs, thus the choice lies in the hands of the citizens. Shall the priority be the nation, or the nation as a facade for the higher class of society to whom power is surrendered?

METHODOLOGY

This chapter outlines the research methodology adopted for the study, which includes the research design, data collection methods, sampling procedure, data analysis techniques, and research timeline. These components provide a systematic framework for addressing the study’s objectives and research questions.

Research Design

This study adopts a qualitative-descriptive research design, appropriate for exploring the subjective experiences and political sentiments of Filipino citizens toward President Rodrigo Duterte’s administration. The qualitative approach enables the researcher to gain in-depth insights into the phenomenon of populism as experienced and perceived by individuals at the grassroots level. Furthermore, the research uses the following techniques in gathering data: semi-formal interview.

The questionnaire-interview approach was applied as it deals with exploring, describing, and analyzing populist sentiments of the selected interviewees during the administration of the ex-President Rodrigo Roa Duterte. A qualitative – coding analysis will be used to deepen the understanding as to how the respondents perceive the governance of President Duterte during his administration.

The qualitative data will be analyzed through Thematic and Conceptual Analysis on the populist sentiments of the respondents during the administration of President Duterte and the emergence of a right-wing authoritarianism.

The above mentioned techniques would be utilized to answer the research questions explored by this study.

Research Instruments

To gather rich and contextual data, the study employed the following methods:

• Semi-structured interviews (see Appendix) – These allowed flexibility in probing the respondents’ views while maintaining a consistent set of core questions across interviews. This method is suitable for eliciting detailed narratives about their political attitudes, trust in leadership, and experiences with governance under the Duterte administration.
• Participant observation – The researcher conducted non-intrusive observation within the Facebook group RODY “DIGONG” DUTERTE SOLID GROUP. This helped capture the tone, themes, and collective narratives among online Duterte supporters.

Interviews were conducted in both English and Filipino, depending on the preference of the participant, to ensure clarity and comfort in expressing ideas.

Sampling Technique

This research utilized purposive sampling, targeting individuals who explicitly supported President Duterte. The goal was to select respondents who could meaningfully reflect the sentiments of grassroots supporters. Two participants were selected:

• Albert Gutierrez, STEM Strand Coordinator at Colegio San Agustin – Makati
• Moises Santiago Beltran, Barangay Kagawad of Barangay General T. De Leon, Valenzuela City

Both informants were chosen based on their vocal and visible support of Duterte during and after his term in office.

Locale of the Study

The interviews were conducted in:

• Starbucks – Glorietta 5, Makati City (Mr. Gutierrez)
• Barangay Hall of General T. De Leon, Valenzuela City (Hon. Beltran)

Data analysis and writing were carried out at the Asian Center, University of the Philippines – Diliman. The Asian Center is the University of the Philippines’ only unit with a regional area of specialization and one of the colleges in the university’s Diliman campus. Established in 1955 as the Institute of Asian Studies, the Asian Center offers graduate-level multidisciplinary programs on Asian Studies and on Philippine Studies. Its mandate—the study of Asia—is underpinned by law, Republic Act 5334, which took effect in June 1968. The Asian Center is based at the GT-Toyota Asian Cultural Center.  It is a member of the Consortium for Southeast Asian Studies in Asia; the Kyoto International Consortium for Asian Studies (KICAS); and the Network of ASEAN-China Academic Institutes (NACAI).

Analytical Tools

Thematic analysis and conceptual coding were employed to process and interpret the qualitative data:

• Thematic Analysis – This technique was used to identify recurring patterns, themes, and categories related to populist sentiments, perceptions of governance, and political support.
• Conceptual Coding – This allowed for the categorization of interview data based on theoretical concepts such as “right-wing authoritarianism,” “technocratic governance,” and “emergent populism.”

These tools facilitated the drawing of nuanced insights into how grassroots support for Duterte was sustained and ideologically framed.

Purposive sampling – the researchers selected two respondents who are Duterte supporters who explicitly show their support. The respondents consist of a teacher, and a barangay kagawad.

The Stages in Research and Writing

The diagram below illustrates the research process the researcher will undergo for this study.

First Stage – Preparatory Stage

The first step in the research writing is the preparatory phase which involves assessment of research topic, readings and preparation of the instruments to be used for the next stage, data collection.

Based on the recommendations of Dr. Dulce Natividad, and gaps of the initial reading, the researchers decided to explore the populist sentiments in the Philippines during the administration of President Duterte. The researchers coordinated with the respondents whom they know are really supporters of President Duterte and the administrators of Facebook group pages of the FPRRD’s supporters.

The researchers then prepared a semi-structured interview which aimed to gauge the respondents’ populist sentiments and emergence of right-wing authoritarianism during President Duterte’s administration.

Second Stage – Data Collection Stage

The researchers interviewed the following the supporters of President Duterte:

1. Mr. Albert Gutierrez – Coordinator, Science and Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Strand, Colegio San Agustin – Makati
2. Hon. Moises Santiago Beltran – Brgy. Kagawad, Barangay Gen. T. De Leon, District 2, Valenzuela City

The researchers also did a participant observation in RODY “DIGONG”DUTERTE SOLID GROUP facebook group.

Third Stage – Data Analysis Stage

Figure No. 2: Coding Analysis

CONCLUSION

• The rise of oligarchic democracy in which socio-economic and political management has been concentrated at the discretion of the few powerful actors who control most of domestic capital. The good governance agenda as a paradigm for technocratic governance. Technocratic policy making Managing opposition and contestation These elements have made possible the co-existence of right-wing authoritarian and democratic ideals.
• Liberal Reformism of Aquino vs Populist Politics of Duterte The coalitions (e.g Church and social democrats) that underpinned the governance reform project lost legitimacy. There are three elements in this crisis of governance: (1) Contradiction between corruption and cronyism and the good governance agenda; (2) Exacerbating such contradictions and fueling the populist resurgence; and (3) Ideological dimension in the new authoritarian populism.
• Duterte’s populism links his hostility to liberal reform, as well as their emphasis on order, political stability, and development through neoliberal programs. He also focused on developmental populism in terms of effective forms of service delivery such as those infrastructure development and infrastructural populism that aims to strengthen economic nationalism.
• The rise of the right-wing authoritarian regimes was caused by the failure of governance institutions (absence of effective political parties, no connection between social groups and political systems)
• The core of the renewed right-wing movement is the language of order and stability that seeks to cleanse the state of liberal institutions that would build a cross-class coalition.

Timetable of the Study

Figure No. 3: Timetable of the Study

REFERENCES

1. Agustin, O. (2020). LEFT-WING POPULISM. Emerald Publishing.  Retrieved from: https://books.emeraldinsight.com/resources/pdfs/chapters/9781839092060-TYPE23-NR2.pdf
2. Asia Link. (2022, May 16). The Philippines Marcoses given new lease on political life. Retrieved 2024, January 22 from: https://asialink.unimelb.edu.au/insights/the-philippines-marcoses-given-new-lease-on-political-life
3. Asian Century Institute. (2018, April 2). The Rise of Duterte – a book review. Retrieved 2024, January 22 from: https://asiancenturyinstitute.com/politics/1395-the-rise-of-duterte-a-book-review
4. Buan, L. (2023 December 9). Duterte got licenses for over 300 guns 2 weeks before his term ended. Rappler. Retrieved 2024, January 22 from: https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/investigative/duterte-license-firearms-weeks-before-term-end/
5. Buendia. R (January 20, 2024) Rise Of Populism In Philippines: Antecedence And Consequence – Analysis. Eurasia. Retrieved 2024, January 22 from: https://www.eurasiareview.com/15022021-rise-of-populism-in-philippines-antecedence-and-consequence-analysis/
6. Bulent, K. (2023, June 14). The Philippines: From ‘People Power’ to Democratic Backsliding. European Center for Populism Studies. Retrieved 2024, January 22 from: https://www.populismstudies.org/the-philippines-from-people-power-to-democratic-backsliding/
7. Caiani, M., & Graziano, P. (2022, March 30) The Three Faces of Populism in Power: Polity, Policies and Politics. Government and Opposition. Retrieved from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/government-and-opposition/article/three-faces-of-populism-in-power-polity-policies-and-politics/EC8B155B34B8EEDFC761329558EEB6EF
8. Cayla, D. (2021). Populism and neoliberalism. Google Scholar. Retrieved from: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Populism%20and%20neoliberalism&publication_year=2021&author=Cayla%2CD
9. Conde, C. (n.d.). Philippines’ ‘War on Drugs’. Human Rights Watch. Retrieved 2024, January 22 from: https://www.hrw.org/tag/philippines-war-drugs
10. Cox, M. (2018, February). Understanding the global rise of populism. LSE Ideas. https://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/Assets/Documents/updates/LSE-IDEAS-Understanding-Global-Rise-of-Populism.pdf
11. De Castro, R. C. (2007). The 1997 Asian Financial Crisis and the Revival of Populism/Neo-Populism in 21st Century Philippine Politics. Asian Survey, 47(6), 930–951. https://doi.org/10.1525/as.2007.47.6.930
12. De Guzman, C. (2022, May 9). Why Bongbong Marcos is favored in the Philippines. Time. Retrieved 2024, January 22 from:  https://time.com/6162028/bongbong-marcos-philippines-president-popular/
13. De Witte, M. (2020, March 11). Populism is a political problem that is putting democracy at risk, Stanford scholars say. Stanford News. Retrieved 2024, January 23 from: https://news.stanford.edu/2020/03/11/populism-jeopardizes-democracies-around-world/
14. Dressel, B. (2011). The Philippines: how much real democracy? International Political Science Review / Revue Internationale de Science Politique, 32(5), 529–545. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41308912
15. Encyclopedia Britannica. (2024, January 19). Ferdinand Marcos. Retrieved 2024, January 22 from: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ferdinand-E-Marcos
16. Encyclopedia Britannica. (2023, October 13). Joseph Estrada. Retrieved 2024, January 22 from: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Joseph-Estrada
17. Encyclopedia Britannica. (n.d.). Philippines: Martial Law. Retrieved 2024, January 23 from: https://www.britannica.com/place/Philippines/Martial-law
18. European Center for Populism Studies. (n.d.). Left-Wing Populism. Retrieved 2024, January 22 from: https://www.populismstudies.org/Vocabulary/left-wing-populism/
19. European Center for Populism Studies. (n.d.). Populism. Retrieved 2024, January 22 from: https://www.populismstudies.org/Vocabulary/populism/
20. European Center for Populism Studies. (n.d.). Right-Wing Populism. Retrieved 2024, January 22 from: https://www.populismstudies.org/Vocabulary/right-wing-populism/
21. EAF editors. (2023, September 18). Southeast Asia. Thailand’s new government puts a  populist face on the country’s discredited establishment. EastAsiaForum.  Retrieved from https://eastasiaforum.org/2023/09/18/thailands-new-government-puts-a-populist-face on-the-countrys-discredited-establishment/
22. Garcia, P. (2022, June 27). Six years on: Did the Duterte administration deliver on its anti-corruption promise?. CNN Philippines. Retrieved 2024, January 22 from: https://www.cnnphilippines.com/news/2022/6/27/duterte-corruption-in-the-last-6-years.html
23. Global Citizen. (2024, January 22). Poverty Rates Have Decreased Substantially in the         Philippines. Retrieved 2024, January 22 from: https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/poverty-rates-decline-philippines/
24. Hameleers, M., Reinemann, C., Schmuck, D., Fawzi, N. (2019, April). The Persuasiveness of Populist Communication. Conceptualizing the Effects and Political Consequences of Populist Communication from a Social Identity Perspective. Communicating populism. Comparing interactions between politicians, media, and citizens across Europe (p. 17).
25. Holbig, H. (2024). The Rise of Digital Repression in Indonesia under Joko Widodo. Giga
26. Focus. Retrieved from
27. https://www.giga-hamburg.de/en/publications/giga-focus/the-rise-of-digital-repression-in-indonesia-under-joko-widodo
28. Hunt, C. (n.d.). Philippine Values and Martial Law. JSTOR. Retrieved 2023, January 23 from https://www.jstor.org/stable/20070329
29. Illustrate to Educate. (2021, January 18). Left-wing Populism VS Right-wing Populism | What is Populism? [Video]. Youtube. Retrieved 2024, January 23 from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NRr_pbpEQY
30. Jayasuriya, K. (2020). THE RISE OF THE RIGHT: Populism and Authoritarianism in Southeast Asian Politics. Southeast Asian Affairs, 43–56. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26938883
31. Karlson, N. (2023). Table 2.1 Ways that populists frame the ‘us-versus-them’ logic. SpringerNature. Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-49074-3_2/tables/1
32. Kreuzer, P. (2020, May). Duterte, Estada, Thaksin and the Battle Cry of Populism. PRIF. Retrieved 2024, January 23 from:
33. https://blog.prif.org/2020/05/07/duterte-estrada-thaksin-and-the-battle-cry-of-populism/
34. Kurlantzick, J. (2018, November 1). Southeast Asia’s populism is different but also dangerous. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved from https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/southeast-asias-populism-different-also-dangerous
35. Lazarus, E. (2022, June 9). The unraveling of Indonesia’s populist politics. Asia
36. Democracy Chronicles. Retrieved from: https://adnchronicles.org/2022/06/09/the-unraveling-of-indonesias-populist-politics/
37. Lim, B. (2022, May 16).  The Philippines’ Marcoses given New Lease on Political Life. Asialink. Retrieved 2024, January 22 from: https://asialink.unimelb.edu.au/insights/the-philippines-marcoses-given-new-lease-on-political-life
38. Manning, L. (2022). Neoliberalism: What It Is, With Examples and Pros and Cons. Investopedia. Retrieved from: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/neoliberalism.asp
39. McCARGO, D. (2016). Duterte’s Mediated Populism. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 38(2), 185–190. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24916626
40. Mietzner, B. M. (2021, September 10). Drivers of populism in Indonesia – Australian Institute of International Affairs. Australian Institute of International Affairs. https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/drivers-of-populism-in-indonesia/
41. Molloy, D. (2018, March 6). What is populism, and what does the term actually mean?
42. BBC News. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-43301423?fbclid=IwAR2Unp-RzDKMGIPX-wqBSrKYbaH_2xfILFEavWjmn1eQmgIS_bro7RtunJc
43. Munro, A. (2023, December 19). Populism | History, Facts, & Examples. Encyclopedia
44. Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/populism
45. New World Encyclopedia. (2024, January 19). Ferdinand Marcos. Retrieved 2024, January 22 from: https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ferdinand_Marcos#First_term_.281965-1969.29
46. Official Gazette (n.d.) A History of the Philippine Political Protest.  Retrieved from
47. https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/edsa/the-ph-protest/
48. Olivares-Jirsell, J., & Hellström, A. (2023, September 4). Activities and Counterstrategies; Populism during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Populism. https://doi.org/10.1163/25888072-bja10050
49. Parcon, I. C. (2021). Understanding Dutertismo: Populism and democratic politics in the Philippines. Asian Journal of Social Science, 49(3), 131–137. Retrieved 2024, January 23 from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajss.2021.03.00
50. PHILO-Notes. (2022, November 20). What is Populism? Retrieved 2024, January 22 from: https://philonotes.com/2022/11/what-is-populism
51. Pheu Thai Party. (2007). ประกาศนายทะเบียนพรรคการเมอง. Pheu Thai Party Policy. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20120614155533/http://www.ratchakitcha.soc.go.th/DATA/PDF/2550/E/174/1.PDF
52. Phùng, C. K., & Nguyễn, L. N. (2022). Populism in Vietnam today: status-quo and policy recommendation. The Russian Journal of Vietnamese Studies, 6(2), 18–28. Retrieved From: https://doi.org/10.54631/vs.2022.62-109108
53. Pieterse, J. N. (2019). What Do People Want?: Unscrambling Populism. Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 102(2–3), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.5325/soundings.102.2-3.0111
54. Populism – ECPS. (n.d.). ECPS. https://www.populismstudies.org/Vocabulary/populism/
55. Populist politics in Indonesia. (2017, December 7). East-West Center | www.eastwestcenter.org. https://www.eastwestcenter.org/publications/populist-politics-in-indonesia
56. Robison, R., & Hadiz, V. R. (2020, January 1). Populism in Southeast Asia: A Vehicle for Reform or a Tool for Despots? Studies in the Political Economy of Public Policy. Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-28255-4_6
57.  Routledge.Heinisch, R., & Werner, A. (2023, October 23). The strange bedfellows of populism and liberalism: the effect of populist attitudes on the perception of the COVID-19 pandemic and policies to contain it. Comparative European Politics. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41295-023-00367-z
58. Silva, B. C., Fuks, M., & Tamaki, E. R. (2022). So thin it’s almost invisible: Populist attitudes and voting behavior in Brazil. Electoral Studies, 75, 102434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102434
59. Thailand – Populist Democracy, Reforms, Constitution. (n.d.). Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/place/Thailand/Attempts-to-institute-populist-democracy
60. THOMPSON, M. R. (2010). Populism and the Revival of Reform: Competing Political Narratives in the Philippines. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 32(1), 1–28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41288801
61. Thongnoi, J. (2023, December 15). The limits of Thailand’s populist politics. The Interpreter. Retrieved from
62. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/limits-thailand-s-populist-politics
63. Terada, T. (2021, July 22). Five vows, five years later: A lookback into Duterte’s major campaign promises. CNN Philippines. https://www.cnnphilippines.com/news/2021/7/22/SONA-2021-Duterte-presidential-campaign-promises.html
64. The News Pretender. (2018). Is Left-Wing Populism Still Relevant?. Retrieved from: http://new-pretender.com/2018/07/22/is-left-wing-populism-still-relevant/
65. University of Chicago. (2017, November). Why the Poor Support Populism. Retrieved 2024, January 23 from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26546045

APPENDIX

Interview Questions

1. Did you support President Duterte before?
2. What qualities does he possess that made you support him?
3. How is he different from the other politicians?
4. How would rate/evaluate his presidency?
5. If he runs again, would you vote for him?
6. What, in your opinion, were the most pressing issues that led you to support President Duterte?
7. Do you find his unconventional communication style effective in addressing the concerns of the people?
8. Did you feel a stronger sense of national unity under his leadership?
9. How aware are you of the criticisms that have been directed towards President Duterte’s administration?
10. Human rights issues have been raised in relation to some policies. How do you reconcile these concerns with your support for President Duterte?