AS early as now, the political chatter about the 2028 presidential elections has begun. Names are being floated, speculations are growing and political camps are quietly positioning themselves for what many expect will be a decisive national contest.
The central question dominating conversations today is simple: Who should run against Sara Duterte?
Vice President Sara Duterte will seek the presidency in 2028, but only if she survives the political and legal storms she currently faces. If she is eventually convicted in the impeachment process and barred from holding public office, it is likely that another member of the Duterte alliance will be ordained to carry the torch. Political clans rarely disappear when one member falls. They regenerate through relatives, trusted allies and loyal political networks.
Against that possibility, the anti-Duterte opposition has begun floating potential candidates. Former vice president Leni Robredo is frequently mentioned. Others suggest senators, governors, technocrats or rising national figures who might serve as a credible counterweight to the Duterte political machine.
Even I have publicly mused about the possibility of a Robredo candidacy, imagining a scenario where she could even receive the endorsement of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Such an alliance would not be unimaginable in Philippine politics, where yesterday’s rivals sometimes become tomorrow’s partners when strategic interests converge.
Yet all this speculation may be missing the more important question. The real issue is not who should run, but how to ensure that there will be only one candidate running against the Duterte camp.
History has repeatedly shown that when the anti-Duterte vote fragments, the Duterte political machinery wins. The Duterte brand of politics thrives in a fragmented electoral field where several candidates compete for the same pool of voters. When opposition figures divide the vote among themselves, the Duterte political network does not even need an overwhelming majority to prevail. It only needs a divided opposition.
This is why the focus of advocacy at this stage should not yet revolve around personalities. Instead, the conversation should center on process.
The anti-Duterte opposition must begin discussing, and eventually agreeing on, a mechanism that will produce a single standard-bearer. One can imagine something similar to a primary election system. Candidates who aspire to run against the Duterte camp should voluntarily commit to participating in a selection process designed to determine who among them stands the best chance of winning.
Such a process could involve several stages. Credible nationwide surveys could measure national preference and voter acceptability. Straw polls among political organizations and civil society networks could gauge grassroots support. Consultations with political parties, reform coalitions and civic groups could help refine the field. The process might culminate in a national convention where a consensus candidate is formally endorsed.
The precise design of the mechanism can vary, but the principle should remain clear. Anyone who wishes to run must first agree to compete within a common process and commit beforehand to honoring the outcome. If surveys show that one candidate consistently outperforms the others, then the rest should step aside. If a convention selects a standard-bearer, the others must rally behind that decision.
Without such a commitment, the anti-Duterte opposition will once again fall into the familiar trap of fragmented ambition.
This approach is not about suppressing democracy or limiting political competition. On the contrary, it is about organizing democratic choice in a way that allows voters to clearly see a viable alternative. What we are witnessing now is the opposite. Political noise dominates the conversation. Potential candidates are subtly campaigning. Allies are quietly promoting their preferred figures. Social media speculation fuels personality-driven debates centered on individual ambitions rather than collective strategy.
None of this addresses the structural problem.
If the anti-Duterte vote divides among multiple candidates in 2028, then no amount of social media enthusiasm or elite endorsements will prevent a Duterte-backed candidate from consolidating victory. The Duterte political machinery does not necessarily need to dramatically expand its base. It only needs the anti-Duterte opposition to remain divided.
What is required is discipline.
The anti-Duterte opposition must mature beyond personality politics and begin building institutional mechanisms that allow strategic coordination. The Philippines has historically struggled with this because political parties remain weak and alliances are fluid. Yet the absence of strong party structures does not mean coordination is impossible.
Civil society organizations, reform-oriented political groups and responsible national leaders could begin laying the groundwork now. Discussions could start about what criteria should guide the selection of a candidate. Independent polling institutions could design transparent survey mechanisms credible to all participating contenders. Political coalitions could negotiate the rules governing participation in a unified selection process.
The goal should not be to prematurely crown a candidate today. The goal should be to build a process that everyone agrees to follow tomorrow.
Imagine if by 2027, potential presidential contenders from the anti-Duterte opposition publicly sign a commitment to participate in a unified selection mechanism and pledge beforehand that whoever emerges as the strongest candidate will receive the support of the rest. Such a commitment would replace a chaotic free-for-all with structured competition and unity behind a single challenger.
Most importantly, the Duterte political machinery would face a consolidated opponent rather than multiple scattered challengers.
Until such a process is built, every debate about who should run remains premature. Whether the candidate ultimately becomes Leni Robredo, a sitting senator, a reformist governor, or an entirely new national figure matters less than the existence of a system that ensures only one of them eventually stands.
Defeating the Duterte political clan in 2028 will require more than strong personalities. It will require collective discipline. The conversation should therefore shift immediately. Instead of endlessly debating who among the possible contenders should run, the more urgent task is designing a credible and binding process that produces a single challenger.
Without that, the debate over personalities may amount to nothing more than political noise, and the Duterte clan, as always, will be the ones quietly benefiting from it.
Antonio P. Contreras, PhD, is a professor at the University of the Philippines Los Baños and a political analyst. The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is affiliated with.
Vice President Sara Duterte will seek the presidency in 2028, but only if she survives the political and legal storms she currently faces. If she is eventually convicted in the impeachment process and barred from holding public office, it is likely that another member of the Duterte alliance will be ordained to carry the torch. Political clans rarely disappear when one member falls. They regenerate through relatives, trusted allies and loyal political networks.
Against that possibility, the anti-Duterte opposition has begun floating potential candidates. Former vice president Leni Robredo is frequently mentioned. Others suggest senators, governors, technocrats or rising national figures who might serve as a credible counterweight to the Duterte political machine.
Even I have publicly mused about the possibility of a Robredo candidacy, imagining a scenario where she could even receive the endorsement of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Such an alliance would not be unimaginable in Philippine politics, where yesterday’s rivals sometimes become tomorrow’s partners when strategic interests converge.
Yet all this speculation may be missing the more important question. The real issue is not who should run, but how to ensure that there will be only one candidate running against the Duterte camp.
History has repeatedly shown that when the anti-Duterte vote fragments, the Duterte political machinery wins. The Duterte brand of politics thrives in a fragmented electoral field where several candidates compete for the same pool of voters. When opposition figures divide the vote among themselves, the Duterte political network does not even need an overwhelming majority to prevail. It only needs a divided opposition.
This is why the focus of advocacy at this stage should not yet revolve around personalities. Instead, the conversation should center on process.
The anti-Duterte opposition must begin discussing, and eventually agreeing on, a mechanism that will produce a single standard-bearer. One can imagine something similar to a primary election system. Candidates who aspire to run against the Duterte camp should voluntarily commit to participating in a selection process designed to determine who among them stands the best chance of winning.
Such a process could involve several stages. Credible nationwide surveys could measure national preference and voter acceptability. Straw polls among political organizations and civil society networks could gauge grassroots support. Consultations with political parties, reform coalitions and civic groups could help refine the field. The process might culminate in a national convention where a consensus candidate is formally endorsed.
The precise design of the mechanism can vary, but the principle should remain clear. Anyone who wishes to run must first agree to compete within a common process and commit beforehand to honoring the outcome. If surveys show that one candidate consistently outperforms the others, then the rest should step aside. If a convention selects a standard-bearer, the others must rally behind that decision.
Without such a commitment, the anti-Duterte opposition will once again fall into the familiar trap of fragmented ambition.
This approach is not about suppressing democracy or limiting political competition. On the contrary, it is about organizing democratic choice in a way that allows voters to clearly see a viable alternative. What we are witnessing now is the opposite. Political noise dominates the conversation. Potential candidates are subtly campaigning. Allies are quietly promoting their preferred figures. Social media speculation fuels personality-driven debates centered on individual ambitions rather than collective strategy.
None of this addresses the structural problem.
If the anti-Duterte vote divides among multiple candidates in 2028, then no amount of social media enthusiasm or elite endorsements will prevent a Duterte-backed candidate from consolidating victory. The Duterte political machinery does not necessarily need to dramatically expand its base. It only needs the anti-Duterte opposition to remain divided.
What is required is discipline.
The anti-Duterte opposition must mature beyond personality politics and begin building institutional mechanisms that allow strategic coordination. The Philippines has historically struggled with this because political parties remain weak and alliances are fluid. Yet the absence of strong party structures does not mean coordination is impossible.
Civil society organizations, reform-oriented political groups and responsible national leaders could begin laying the groundwork now. Discussions could start about what criteria should guide the selection of a candidate. Independent polling institutions could design transparent survey mechanisms credible to all participating contenders. Political coalitions could negotiate the rules governing participation in a unified selection process.
The goal should not be to prematurely crown a candidate today. The goal should be to build a process that everyone agrees to follow tomorrow.
Imagine if by 2027, potential presidential contenders from the anti-Duterte opposition publicly sign a commitment to participate in a unified selection mechanism and pledge beforehand that whoever emerges as the strongest candidate will receive the support of the rest. Such a commitment would replace a chaotic free-for-all with structured competition and unity behind a single challenger.
Most importantly, the Duterte political machinery would face a consolidated opponent rather than multiple scattered challengers.
Until such a process is built, every debate about who should run remains premature. Whether the candidate ultimately becomes Leni Robredo, a sitting senator, a reformist governor, or an entirely new national figure matters less than the existence of a system that ensures only one of them eventually stands.
Defeating the Duterte political clan in 2028 will require more than strong personalities. It will require collective discipline. The conversation should therefore shift immediately. Instead of endlessly debating who among the possible contenders should run, the more urgent task is designing a credible and binding process that produces a single challenger.
Without that, the debate over personalities may amount to nothing more than political noise, and the Duterte clan, as always, will be the ones quietly benefiting from it.
Antonio P. Contreras, PhD, is a professor at the University of the Philippines Los Baños and a political analyst. The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is affiliated with.