SENATOR Imee Marcos, earlier this month, made headlines and received flak by drawing a direct parallel between the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US special forces in Caracas on Jan. 3, 2026, and her own family’s exit from the Philippines in 1986 after the People’s Revolution, popularly dubbed the “Edsa People Power 1.”
Her comments have sparked significant discussion and reproach regarding the definition of “sovereignty,” “intervention,” and the historical accuracy of her family’s move to Hawaii.
Senator Marcos framed the arrest of Maduro as a “troubling signal” to the international community. She described the US actions against Maduro as a form of kidnapping, saying it reminded her of 1986. She claimed her late father Ferdinand Sr. believed they were “kidnapped” when US Air Force planes flew them to Guam and then Hawaii.
In claiming that their exit in 1986 was a “kidnapping,” critics called it an attempt on the part of Senator Marcos to downplay the fact that her family was fleeing a popular revolt. The truth is the US protected their family from the immediate physical danger of the protesters.
“Calling that a ‘kidnapping’ does not revise history. It only rewrites accountability into victimhood,” stated a “Filipino who refuses to forget” in an open letter to the senator. The letter continued: “Senator, the Marcos family was not blindfolded, chained, or seized in a midnight raid. You were flown out under diplomatic arrangements to prevent bloodshed – after millions of Filipinos had already withdrawn their consent from a dictatorship.”
As chairperson of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the senator asserted that such actions prove “power, rather than rules, determines outcomes in global affairs,” accusing the US of historically intervening in the internal affairs of nations like the Philippines.
She openly said, “It is personal to me because it reminds me of what happened to us,” though she was careful to add, “I will be the last person to defend Maduro.”
The senator cannot compare though their departure in 1986 to the arrest of Maduro on Jan. 3. Her comparison only complicates the historical and contextual differences between the two events.
In context, the Marcos family in 1986 was plucked out by the US from Malacañang during the Edsa People Power Revolution 1 to save them from danger, while Maduro was arrested in a US military raid on his home soil on accusations of drug trafficking and narco-terrorism. The Marcoses were not under arrest by the US at the time of extraction; they were fleeing domestic unrest. Maduro was taken into custody to face trial in a US federal court in New York.
The senator’s statement was met with a mix of support from those skeptical of US foreign policy and loud criticism from those who see the comparison as an attempt to rewrite the history of the first Edsa Revolution.
The comparison is part of a broader trend in Senator Marcos’ recent rhetoric, in which she often strikes a more critical tone toward the United States than her brother, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. (PBBM).
Interestingly, the senator’s comments on Maduro follow her similar defense of former President Rodrigo Duterte. In March 2025, she likened the ICC’s arrest of Duterte to her family’s 1986 ouster, framing both as “outsiders” interfering in Filipino affairs.
While Senator Marcos has focused on the “personal” and historical parallels to her family’s 1986 departure, other officials and legal experts have emphasized on the broader implications for international law and Philippine sovereignty.
The Philippine government’s reaction has been split between diplomatic caution and sharp condemnation from lawmakers.
The Department of Foreign Affairs issued a statement on Jan. 5, expressing “concern” over the impact on the “rules-based international order.” They urged all parties to exercise restraint and resolve disputes through “peaceful means,” avoiding a direct condemnation of the US action to maintain diplomatic ties.
But the Makabayan Bloc lawmakers like Representatives Perci Cendaña and Antonio Tinio were more vocal, calling the operation an “illegal invasion” and a “flagrant violation of the UN Charter.” They claim that what the US did to the Venezuelan leader could set a precedent that could eventually jeopardize the Philippines’ own sovereignty in its disputes with other superpowers.
The contrast between PBBM and his sister Senator Imee has become a focal point of Philippine politics. While they share a last name, their reactions to the US capture of Nicolás Maduro reveal a deep ethical and political rift. The President and the senator are operating from two very different playbooks regarding the Maduro situation and the “kidnapping” narrative.
The President has maintained a measured, diplomatic tone. He has avoided echoing his sister’s “abduction” rhetoric, focusing instead on the Philippines’ commitment to the “community of nations” and international law.
Last year, when Senator Marcos claimed the government was unjustly targeting PRRD for arrest, PBBM explicitly rejected her claims, saying, “I disagree... we follow the law.” He is applying this same logic to Maduro, framing such events as legal matters rather than personal or political “kidnappings.”
The senator, who is obviously aligned with the Duterte camp, used the Maduro arrest to criticize US “imperialism.” And, in comparing Maduro’s capture to her family’s 1986 disgraceful exit, she is trying to denigrate the Edsa People’s Revolution not as a popular uprising, but as a foreign-led coup.