Senator Imee Marcos has ignited a fresh political firestorm by drawing a direct parallel between a recent international military operation and her family's historic departure from the Philippines. Her comments have triggered intense debate about sovereignty, historical revisionism, and the enduring legacy of the 1986 Edsa People Power Revolution.
Controversial Comparison Sparks Outcry
Earlier this month, Senator Marcos made headlines after commenting on the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by US special forces in Caracas on January 3, 2026. She described the US action as a form of kidnapping and stated it reminded her of her own family's exit from Malacañang in February 1986.
"It is personal to me because it reminds me of what happened to us," Marcos said, though she clarified she was "the last person to defend Maduro." She framed the arrest as a "troubling signal" where "power, rather than rules, determines outcomes in global affairs."
Historical Facts vs. 'Victimhood' Narrative
Critics were swift to condemn the comparison, arguing it dangerously distorts historical facts. They pointed out that the Marcos family was evacuated by the US Air Force to Guam and then Hawaii under diplomatic arrangements to ensure their safety during the massive popular uprising.
In a sharp rebuttal, an open letter from a "Filipino who refuses to forget" addressed the senator directly. "Calling that a 'kidnapping' does not revise history. It only rewrites accountability into victimhood," the letter stated. It emphasized that the family was not "blindfolded, chained, or seized in a midnight raid" but was flown out "after millions of Filipinos had already withdrawn their consent from a dictatorship."
The key distinction, analysts note, is that the Marcoses were fleeing domestic unrest, while Maduro was arrested on accusations of drug trafficking and narco-terrorism to face trial in a US federal court.
A Deepening Political Rift
The controversy has also highlighted a growing divergence between Senator Marcos and her brother, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. (PBBM). While the senator has adopted a sharply critical tone toward the United States, the President has maintained a more measured, diplomatic stance focused on international law.
This incident is part of a pattern in Senator Marcos's rhetoric. In March 2025, she similarly compared the International Criminal Court's actions against former President Rodrigo Duterte to her family's 1986 ouster, framing both as foreign interference.
The Philippine government's reaction has been mixed. The Department of Foreign Affairs expressed concern for the "rules-based international order" but avoided directly condemning the US. In contrast, lawmakers from the Makabayan Bloc, like Representatives Perci Cendaña and Antonio Tinio, labeled the Venezuela operation an "illegal invasion" and a "flagrant violation of the UN Charter."
Ultimately, the debate goes beyond a single statement. It touches on core issues of how history is remembered, the nature of US-Philippine relations, and the ongoing political narratives that shape the nation's present and future.
