| PDM Graphics
I still remember the first time I saw a Philippine president speak at the United Nations. It was the early 1980s, and I was a newly arrived immigrant in New York — young, hopeful, and trying to understand my place in a country that felt both vast and promising. When President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. addressed the UN General Assembly in 1982, I was struck by the spectacle: the formality, the gravitas, the sense that the Philippines — my Philippines — had a voice on the world stage. For someone trying to build a life in America, it was a moment of pride. Marcos Sr. knew how to command a room, and his engagement with the Filipino community afterward left a strong impression on many of us who were still finding our footing.
More than forty years later, I watched his son, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., stand at the same podium, speaking to a new generation of diplomats and Filipino immigrants. The world has changed, the Philippines has changed, and the UN has changed — yet the symbolism of a Marcos addressing the General Assembly remains powerful. And for those of us who have lived long enough to witness both moments, the comparison is unavoidable.
Two Presidencies, Two Eras
Marcos Sr.’s 1982 speech came during the late martial law period, when international criticism of his regime was mounting. His tone was assertive, even defensive, as he spoke of global inequality and the need for a New International Economic Order. He positioned the Philippines as a leader among developing nations, but beneath the rhetoric lay a clear attempt to bolster its legitimacy at a time when questions about human rights abuses and corruption were growing louder.
Marcos Jr.’s 2026 appearance, by contrast, was framed around partnership and multilateralism. Addressing diplomats and a large Filipino audience, he made a forceful appeal for the Philippines’ bid for a non‑permanent seat on the UN Security Council for 2027–2028. “We come before this body not to seek prestige, but to offer partnership,” he said, emphasizing peacekeeping, maritime security, and the country’s experience in conflict resolution through the Bangsamoro peace process.
Where the father projected dominance, the son projected steadiness. Where the father defended his record, the son presented a vision of the Philippines as a constructive global actor.
The Weight of Domestic Issues
But context matters — and for both Marcoses, domestic controversies traveled with them to New York.
For Marcos Sr., the shadow of allegations of ill‑gotten wealth loomed large. Even today, decades after his presidency, many Filipinos continue to demand the return of assets believed to have been amassed during his rule. These unresolved issues remain part of the national memory, shaping how older generations interpret any attempt to rehabilitate the Marcos legacy.
Marcos Jr. faces his own set of challenges. His 2026 UN speech came at a time when Filipinos were still grappling with the West Philippine Sea tensions and the unresolved flood‑control controversy back home. The maritime disputes — marked by repeated confrontations, water‑cannon incidents, and the harassment of Filipino fishermen — have left many Filipinos anxious about national security and sovereignty. Meanwhile, the flood‑control issue, involving questions of accountability and transparency, has become a symbol of the governance frustrations that persist in the public consciousness.
These issues do not disappear when a president steps onto the UN stage. They travel with him, shaping how Filipinos interpret his words and how the world perceives the country’s leadership.
The Filipino Community: Then and Now
In the early 1980s, the Filipino community in New York was smaller but tightly knit. Many were nurses and professionals who had arrived during the first major wave of labor migration. Marcos Sr. understood the power of diaspora engagement, and he used community gatherings to reinforce loyalty and project unity.
In 2026, the diaspora is larger, more diverse, and more politically aware. When Marcos Jr. spoke at the UN, Filipino Americans from across the Northeast filled the gallery to witness the moment. But the tone was different from the 1980s. Today’s Filipino community is not simply an audience; it is a constituency — one that asks questions, demands accountability, and engages critically with events back home.
“Where the father projected dominance, the son projected steadiness. Where the father defended his record, the son presented a vision of the Philippines as a constructive global actor.”
Martial Law Then, Democratic Strain Now
When Marcos Sr. spoke at the UN in 1982, the Philippines was still under martial law — a reality that shaped every word he delivered. Outside the country, human rights groups were documenting arrests, disappearances, and censorship. Inside the country, fear and silence were part of daily life. Yet on the UN stage, Marcos Sr. projected an image of stability and order, insisting that martial law had brought discipline and progress. For many of us watching from New York, still adjusting to life as new immigrants, the contrast between the polished speech and the stories coming from home was difficult to reconcile. Pride mixed with unease.
Marcos Jr. does not preside over a dictatorship, but he governs at a time when democratic institutions are strained in various ways. The Philippines today is not under martial law, yet Filipinos are navigating a climate of disinformation, political polarization, and institutional fragility. The West Philippine Sea confrontations — with Filipino vessels being blocked, harassed, or water‑cannoned — have heightened anxieties about sovereignty and national dignity. At the same time, the unresolved flood‑control controversy has fueled public frustration over transparency and accountability, echoing older grievances about governance and public trust.
These issues form the backdrop of Marcos Jr.’s 2026 UN appearance. Just as his father carried the weight of martial law into the General Assembly Hall, the son carries the weight of these contemporary crises. The contexts are different, but the parallel is unmistakable: both Marcoses arrived in New York at moments when Filipinos were asking hard questions about leadership, integrity, and the nation’s direction.
Diplomacy as Legacy
Marcos Sr. used the UN to assert sovereignty and defend his administration’s policies. His speech was part of a broader effort to maintain international legitimacy amid domestic unrest.
Marcos Jr. used the UN to position the Philippines as a bridge‑builder in a fractured world. His pitch for a Security Council seat leaned on the country’s peacekeeping record, its leadership in Women, Peace, and Security initiatives, and its experience in resolving internal conflict through dialogue and inclusive governance.
The father sought validation.
The son seeks relevance.
Two Speeches, One Story
In the end, comparing the two Marcoses at the UN is not simply a political exercise. It is a reflection on how the Philippines — and the Filipino people — have changed across generations.
Marcos Sr. spoke to a world defined by ideological division.
Marcos Jr. speaks to a world searching for cooperation.
And those of us who have lived long enough to witness both moments carry a unique perspective: we have seen the Philippines evolve, falter, rise, and redefine itself — not once, but many times.
The UN stage remains the same.
The Philippines is standing on it.
