The political landscape in the Philippines witnessed a remarkable transformation in recent weeks as businessman Zaldy Co underwent a dramatic public redemption. Once vilified by Duterte-aligned groups as the embodiment of pork barrel politics and corruption, his sudden shift in status occurred after he implicated President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.
The Sudden Transformation of a Political Villain
Just weeks ago, Zaldy Co represented everything wrong with Philippine politics. Wealthy, well-connected, and embroiled in public works controversies, he served as a convenient symbol for everything Duterte supporters opposed. The same digital pages that regularly attack critics as "yellow thieves" had consistently painted Co as part of the corrupt political dynasty system.
Then everything changed when Co implicated President Marcos Jr. In an instant, the political ecosystem that had demonized him performed a complete reversal. His gaunt appearance became evidence of sincerity, his previously suspect words were suddenly treated as gospel truth, and his motives transformed from questionable to noble. This conversion happened overnight—no gradual reconsideration, no re-examination of facts, just a clean shift from plunderer to prophet.
The crucial question remains: what actually changed? The evidence suggests it wasn't Zaldy Co himself who transformed, but rather who he stood against that mattered most to his former critics.
The Pattern of Political Rehabilitation
The Co episode represents more than an isolated curiosity—it demonstrates the fundamental moral physics governing Duterte-aligned politics. In this worldview, the axis of right and wrong pivots on a single question: "Are you with us or against us?" Everything else becomes negotiable.
This same mechanism has previously rehabilitated numerous political figures. Chavit Singson, Jinggoy Estrada, Bato dela Rosa, Bong Go, and Barzaga all experienced similar political redemption arcs. The pattern extends to dynastic offspring including Sara Duterte, Baste Duterte, Polong Duterte, and even minors like Kitty and Omar Duterte, who are treated as legitimate extensions of a political brand they didn't build.
In this political framework, personal character becomes secondary to demonstrated loyalty. Zaldy Co simply moved close enough to the tribe's interests, however briefly, to be temporarily treated as righteous.
The Tribal Nature of Modern Philippine Politics
To properly understand this phenomenon, we must move beyond labeling it as simple hypocrisy and examine it sociologically. The Duterte political movement operates less on ideology and more on tribal dynamics. It functions not through consistent governance principles but through a system of loyalty markers—essentially barangay patronage politics stretched across the entire nation.
When the political patriarch becomes the center of morality, morality itself becomes relational. If Duterte trusts someone, they're automatically trustworthy. If Duterte's perceived enemies attack someone, that person becomes a victim. And when a flawed ally stands against a bigger foe, their flaws magically disappear.
In this moral universe, Zaldy Co's testimony gained credibility not through evidence but through emotional alignment with tribal needs. The contradictions don't weaken the movement—they paradoxically strengthen it by requiring followers to demonstrate loyalty through accepting the flip-flop without question.
This explains why competence becomes optional for dynastic children, why plunder becomes forgivable for loyalists, why perjury becomes "politics" and corruption becomes "media spin." It also clarifies why unverified accusations become revelations, but only when they strike the appropriate target.
The Deeper Danger and Potential Opportunity
This tribal political approach carries significant risks. When political identity builds on loyalty rather than principle, the tribe must continually identify new enemies to maintain cohesion. The more fragile the internal logic becomes, the more aggressively it seeks external threats. A movement requiring villains to maintain unity cannot govern in good faith—it can only defend, deflect, and divide.
Yet within this challenge lies opportunity. Most Duterte supporters didn't begin with loyalty to a political dynasty. They started with legitimate desires for order, justice, dignity, and leadership that felt direct and unpretentious. These aspirations aren't inherently authoritarian—they represent unmet needs within Philippine society.
The way forward isn't attacking Duterte supporters but offering something superior to the strongman archetype that promised order but delivered instability. This requires addressing the fundamental needs that pulled people toward tribal politics: a functional justice system, institutions that don't condescend, predictable processes, leaders who don't pretend infallibility, and politics that don't shame people for their frustrations.
Zaldy Co's overnight redemption isn't a mystery—it's a symptom. The cure isn't humiliation but building a Philippines where citizens no longer feel they need political saviors to feel secure, and where trust is earned through demonstrated competence rather than inherited through tribal allegiance.
