Anti-corruption legacy
When the right time comes, President Marcos said he will “certainly endorse” a candidate to succeed him after his term ends in 2028. “I will endorse somebody who I am confident will continue what we have begun in terms of the anti-corruption measures,” Mr. Marcos said in a forum of the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines (Focap) on Aug. 14.
Fighting corruption did not figure early in Mr. Marcos’ policies until his State of the Nation Address before the joint session of Congress in July 2025, when he exposed shocking corruption in the government’s multibillion-peso flood control projects. Some of those whom the President called out with his “Mahiya naman kayo” statement turned out to be members of the two houses of Congress he was addressing, as well as officials of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).
Charges have been filed against a number of lawmakers and ex-lawmakers, DPWH officials, and private contractors. The Office of the Ombudsman is poised to file a plunder case against former Speaker Martin Romualdez as the public continues to press for the prosecution of the big fish in the corruption scandal.
Lingering issue
By exposing substandard and ghost projects himself, the President has largely avoided being dragged into the corruption scandal that saw flood control budgets swell in the 2025 national budget — even as former House appropriations committee chair Elizady Co accused him and Romualdez of receiving billions in kickbacks.
It is only fitting that the President would seek to finish what he started—by ensuring those who enabled the systemic corruption end up in jail. It would be a solid achievement to boast at the end of his term.
But if the President would like to be remembered as a leader who fought corruption, he must address a matter closer to home—the lingering issue of the Marcos ill-gotten wealth.
It did not help that the President himself revived the issue and provoked controversy by proclaiming that his family’s wealth was not at all ill-gotten. During the same Focap forum, Mr. Marcos pointed out that his family had won several civil forfeiture cases in courts. “The reason we won those civil cases is because they were proven to be not ill-gotten wealth,” Mr. Marcos said.
Criminal provenance
That gutsy statement reopened old wounds and deep-seated memories of his father Ferdinand Marcos Sr.’s 14-year martial rule, drawing a sharp rebuke from the August Twenty-One Movement (Atom).
“We, the August Twenty-One Movement, vehemently disagree with this claim of Marcos Jr. This is untrue and absolute fake news! We will not just let this pass without disputing this new claim of his,” the group said in a statement. Atom, founded in honor of the slain senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr., reminded Mr. Marcos that his mother, former first lady Imelda Marcos, was convicted of seven counts of graft by the Sandiganbayan in 2018, but has not spent a day in prison.
Indeed, the President’s claim must not go unchallenged. Estimates suggest that the Marcoses and their cronies amassed up to $10 billion during Marcos Sr.’s 20-year regime, stashing some of it in secret Swiss bank accounts.
In 1997, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court ruled that there was “little doubt about the criminal provenance of the secret Marcos accounts and securities hidden in Swiss banks,” and ordered that some $650 million be returned to the Philippine government.
Act of restitution
The Philippines set aside P10 billion of the recovered Swiss deposits to compensate thousands of martial law victims through Republic Act No. 10368, or the Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013, which institutionalized the records of Marcos human rights violations and ill-gotten wealth. The Presidential Commission on Good Government, formed to go after the Marcos ill-gotten wealth, was able to recover about P265 billion as of December 2021 and is running after at least P125 billion more.
If the Marcoses won civil forfeitures, it could be attributed to weak prosecution and weak institutions of accountability.
One act of restitution the President can still make is to pave the way for the settlement of the P203 billion in unpaid Marcos estate tax, another recurring issue against his family and his administration. The Bureau of Internal Revenue issued a written demand for the Marcos family to pay the estate tax liability in December 2021.
In the same Focap forum, the President admitted that he had neglected his duties as coexecutor of his father’s estate because of his responsibilities as chief executive. He said he is leaving it up to family lawyers to handle. “I believe that I have some very good legal advice, and I leave it up to them,” Mr. Marcos said.
Unfortunately, this is a matter that the President cannot just shrug off and pass to his lawyers. Without the courage to confront the matter and pay what is due to the public coffers, Mr. Marcos’ aspiration to leave an anticorruption legacy will not be complete.
Facts Only
* President Marcos stated intent to endorse a candidate after his term ends in 2028 to continue anti-corruption measures.
* The President exposed corruption in flood control projects during the July 2025 State of the Nation Address.
* Those called out by the President included members of Congress and DPWH officials.
* Charges were filed against lawmakers, ex-lawmakers, DPWH officials, and private contractors.
* The Office of the Ombudsman is poised to file a plunder case against former Speaker Martin Romualdez.
* The President claimed his family’s wealth was not ill-gotten, citing civil forfeiture wins.
* Estimates suggest the Marcoses amassed up to $10 billion during Marcos Sr.'s regime.
* A 1997 Swiss Federal Supreme Court ruling ordered the return of $650 million from secret Marcos accounts.
* P10 billion of recovered Swiss deposits were set aside for victims via Republic Act No. 10368.
* The Presidential Commission on Good Government recovered about P265 billion as of December 2021.
* A written demand for Marcos family estate tax liability was issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue in December 2021.
Executive Summary
President Marcos indicated an intent to endorse a successor who would continue anti-corruption measures following his term in 2028. This statement was made during a forum on August 14. Corruption issues were raised by the President during the July 2025 State of the Nation Address regarding flood control projects, exposing officials from the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and members of Congress. Charges have been filed against several lawmakers, ex-lawmakers, DPWH officials, and private contractors, with the Office of the Ombudsman preparing a plunder case against former Speaker Martin Romualdez.
The President's actions regarding corruption include exposing substandard projects and acknowledging his role in neglecting his duties as coexecutor of his father’s estate. Marcos also raised issues concerning his family's wealth, stating that civil forfeiture cases related to this wealth were won because the assets were proven not to be ill-gotten. The article notes that estimates suggest the Marcoses amassed up to $10 billion during Ferdinand Marcos Sr.'s rule, with some funds hidden in Swiss bank accounts, though a 1997 Swiss court ruling ordered the return of $650 million. Efforts to recover wealth through bodies like the Presidential Commission on Good Government have resulted in recoveries of approximately P265 billion as of December 2021, with further recovery sought.
Full Take
The narrative presents a tension between public statements emphasizing anti-corruption efforts and lingering, unaddressed issues concerning inherited wealth. The move to champion an anti-corruption legacy is juxtaposed against the acknowledgment of family wealth, which carries historical weight related to the Martial Law era and subsequent restitution efforts. A critical pattern emerges in how accountability is framed: systemic corruption is publicly addressed through exposure, while personal accountability for accumulated assets remains implicitly deferred or handled privately by legal counsel. The contradiction lies between acknowledging institutional recovery of wealth (P265 billion) and the President's admission of leaving responsibility for estate tax settlement to family lawyers. This suggests a potential pattern where high-level political maneuvering shields personal financial reckoning, allowing an aspiration of a clean legacy to coexist with unresolved financial liabilities against a historical context. The persistence of the issue, despite official accountability measures, signals that the mechanism of restitution may be less potent than public will demands, raising questions about institutional capacity versus individual agency in achieving complete historical redress.
Bridge Questions: What structural changes are necessary within accountability institutions to ensure that personal wealth liabilities are addressed alongside systemic corruption cases? How can the public reconcile an administration's stated commitment to anti-corruption with lingering financial obligations tied to a preceding regime? If civil forfeitures occur, what political and legal barriers prevent the full realization of restitution for victims?
Sentinel — Human
The text functions as structured political commentary, analyzing a public figure's stated anti-corruption goals against documented historical financial liabilities and legal proceedings.