Photo credit: Bongbong Marcos

The 2025 midterm senatorial election was not just a routine democratic exercise; it became a referendum on President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s leadership.

While the results were subtle on the surface, a deeper reading reveals a voter rebellion hiding in plain sight.

Far from delivering a sweeping victory for the administration, the results reflected public disillusionment, confusion, and quiet resistance.

Despite the immense advantage of incumbency, money, media machinery, and institutional control, the Marcos administration and its allies could only muster five out of twelve Senate seats.

Even that five was not purely Marcos aligned, but a loose patchwork of independents and semi allies without ideological consistency or unified messaging.

Meanwhile, Vice President Sara Duterte’s bloc, composed of long time Duterte loyalists and allies like Imee Marcos, Camille Villar, Bato dela Rosa, Bong Go, and Rodante Marcoleta, also captured five seats.

As we write this piece, Marcoleta is at No. 6 among the winners, showing surprising strength despite limited establishment support.

Add to that the comeback of Bam Aquino and Kiko Pangilinan, and the final tally reveals something even more telling: a 7 to 5 symbolic win for the opposition and anti Marcos bloc.

This result is stunning for several reasons.
First, midterm elections historically favor the sitting president. In 2019, Duterte’s allies dominated the Senate in a landslide.

BBM, by contrast, has suffered a visible decline in political influence, not because of his enemies, but because of his own coalition’s failure to inspire confidence or communicate clarity.

The Marcos administration's biggest weakness was not just in candidate selection but in narrative. While its rivals told emotional stories rooted in loyalty, betrayal, and political survival, the administration offered technocratic platitudes and bureaucratic jargon.

It failed to capture imagination, define a direction, or communicate urgency. The electorate was waiting for a bold articulation of what "Bagong Pilipinas" truly meant and got vague slogans, forgettable ads, and disjointed messaging in return.

More critically, the administration mishandled one of the most politically explosive events of the season: the arrest of former President Rodrigo Duterte.

Instead of confronting the issue head on or defending the legality of the action with moral clarity, the Palace adopted a deflection strategy, avoiding the topic, leaving a palace factotum to issue cryptic soundbites, and allowing speculation to fester.

This vacuum of narrative control allowed the Duterte camp to dominate public discourse.

Online, in town halls, and on local radio, the narrative became clear: the Marcos camp was exacting revenge on its former allies.

Whether true or not, the silence from the Palace gave that version space to grow and gain traction.

What could have been framed as a legal matter became a political firestorm. BBM’s team failed to control the narrative, failed to assure his own base, and failed to explain to the broader public how his vision differs from Duterte’s, if at all.

In politics, ambiguity is weakness.

The result? A fractured Alyansa Team, a muddled administration, and a midterm slate with no emotional or ideological coherence.

Let’s look at the numbers.

The five perceived administration aligned winners, Erwin Tulfo, Tito Sotto, Ping Lacson, Pia Cayetano and Lito Lapid, ran mostly on name recall and independence.

None of them is ideologically or strategically tied to BBM. Their wins were not endorsements of the administration, but reflections of their personal brands.

In short, they brought votes in despite, not because of, the Palace.

Meanwhile, Sara Duterte’s bloc brought a loyal base, a clear enemy (the Palace), and a compelling martyr story in her father.

The votes of Bato dela Rosa, Bong Go, Camille Villar, Imee Marcos and Rodante Marcoleta weren’t just about continuity, they were protest votes wrapped in nostalgia and defiance.

Then there’s the resurgence of the opposition, headlined by Bam Aquino and Kiko Pangilinan.

Their impending victories cannot be dismissed as flukes. Without a sitting president, former vice president, or major machinery behind them, they rode a wave of genuine public dissatisfaction.

A clear sign that voters are not just tired of Marcos and Duterte, but of dynastic arrogance and performative politics altogether.

In the end, the 2025 midterms were a devastating indictment of Marcos’s political strategy, messaging failure, and leadership style.

BBM had all the tools, control of the government, the full power of the state, a post-pandemic recovery moment, and a clear opportunity to inspire and unite the country.

He had every chance to secure a high grade from the people. But his administration blew it.

Instead of consolidating power and delivering a compelling narrative, the Marcos administration failed to communicate a vision that resonated with the electorate.

Instead of seizing the moment, these results have weakened the administration’s hold on the Senate, emboldened the Duterte bloc, and reopened the door for the opposition to speak credibly again.

Most of all, it confirmed what BBM’s inner circle has long feared but refused to accept: Filipino voters are not blind followers. They see through the noise, they remember, and when pushed too far, they fight back at the ballot box.

The message of the 2025 electorate is simple but profound: they are not beholden to the Alyansa Team alliances, party coalitions, or presidential slogans.

They are searching for integrity, competence, and accountability, and in 2025, they voted accordingly.

Abangan: In my next column, the effects of this senatorial election in the impeachment of VP Sara.

Ed Javier

Ed Javier is a veteran communicator with over 34 years of professional experience both in the private and public sectors. He is also an entrepreneur, political analyst, newspaper columnist, broadcast and on-line journalist.