Directed by Jerrold Tarog | Starring Jericho Rosales, Karylle Tatlonghari, Romnick Sarmienta, Chris Villanueva, Aaron Villaflor, Anna Abad Santos, Mon Confiado
After watching Quezon, I left the cinema unsure whether I had just seen a story about a national hero or a clever takedown of one. The film’s portrayal of President Manuel L. Quezon, as played by Jericho Rosales, paints him as a bida-kontrabida– a protagonist whose intentions may be noble but whose methods are deeply questionable. If the Quezon family were still in power, this film would probably be branded as propaganda, but perhaps that’s what makes it so striking.
Jerrold Tarog’s Quezon is not the textbook statesman many of us grew up learning about. Instead, he is willful, ambitious, and willing to bend morality if it means achieving his version of progress. His nationalism is evident, but it feels tinged with selfishness- as if the Philippines’ success is a mirror of his own glory.
We see him as a womanizer, a shrewd businessman (not in the flattering sense), and a political brat who punishes anyone who stands in his way. When Emilio Aguinaldo decided to run for president, Quezon swiftly stripped him of land and pension. When Joven, his journalist friend, dared criticize him, Quezon shut down his paper. This is not the polished “Ama ng Wikang Pambansa” we know; thus, a politician who plays dirty and enjoys the game.
A Satire – But Where Is the Balance?
The film reportedly carries satirical elements, but the problem is balance. If satire is the goal, then why is the portrayal almost entirely negative? If you’re going to expose a man’s flaws, shouldn’t you also give space for his achievements- the very things that made him historically significant?
He was, after all, the father of the national language, and his legacy lives on in cities, schools, and roads that bear his name. Yet, the film seems uninterested in exploring that, making it difficult to distinguish between historical truth and creative liberty.
This brings me to an important question: What happens when students watch this?
If this film is introduced in classrooms, it needs serious processing. Teachers should guide discussions after the viewing- what’s real, what’s fictional, what’s mere interpretation. Without that context, Quezon could easily distort rather than deepen historical understanding. Unlike Heneral Luna and Goyo, which both humanized heroes while still honoring their essence, Quezon risks rewriting history without accountability.
A Family’s Right to Be Disappointed
Understandably, the Quezon family feels disappointed. The film paints their patriarch in almost exclusively negative strokes- and reportedly without consultation. Artistic freedom allows reinterpretation, yes, but when dealing with real figures of national importance, historical sensitivity should still matter. A character assassination packaged as satire doesn’t sit well when the subject helped shape a nation’s identity.
Or Is This the Real Message?
Then again, what if this is exactly the point?
What if Quezon isn’t really about Manuel L. Quezon the man, but about the system he represents? The one that continues to plague the Philippines today? The same cycle of power, corruption, ego, and ambition wrapped in nationalism? If so, then this film might actually be a mirror, a reminder that we don’t need another Quezon who plays dirty for change; we need one who can change the system without becoming its monster.
Comparing Jericho Rosales’ Quezon and Raymond Bagatsing’s Quezon’s Game
It’s impossible not to compare Quezon (2025) to Quezon’s Game (2018), another film about the same historical figure but with a vastly different lens.
Matthew Rosen’s Quezon’s Game, starring Raymond Bagatsing, presented the late president as a humanitarian hero. A man who risked everything to open the Philippines to Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution. It was an inspiring retelling that painted Quezon as compassionate, principled, and selfless, the kind of leader history books love to celebrate.
Jerrold Tarog’s Quezon, on the other hand, takes a grittier, more political route. Jericho Rosales’ version of Quezon is flawed, driven, manipulative, and power-hungry, a bida-kontrabida, just like what I mentioned on the first part, who bends ethics to achieve his goals. Quezon’s Game uplifts, Quezon provokes. The former honors the man; the latter questions the system that made him.
Both films serve important but opposing functions: one canonizes Quezon’s legacy, the other challenges it. For educators and audiences, this contrast is crucial; it reminds us that history can be told as either inspiration or interrogation.
Final Thoughts and Rating
Despite the controversies, Quezon is undeniably engaging. The editing and cinematography are sharp, the script is witty and layered, and the performances are exceptional. Jericho Rosales is infuriatingly good- his charm and arrogance blend so naturally that you love and hate him at once.
Romnick Sarmienta delivers one of the strongest supporting roles, offering a nuanced portrayal of the political undercurrents between Quezon and Osmeña- a sub-plot that could even stand as its own film. Karylle’s character remains underexplored, but hints of depth suggest there’s more story waiting to be told from her perspective.
Rating: 8/10 The film may not convince everyone with its story or message, but it definitely provokes, and perhaps that’s the greatest strength. It’s not the Quezon we were taught to admire, but maybe it’s the Quezon we need to question.
Collaboration? Contact me! IG: instagram.com/ricunlimited @ricunlimited FB: www.facebook.com/BlackHeliosUnlimited/ Blog: www.blackheliosph.com Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFky0fb0NWdqo5iICgzq6jg Tiktok: www.tiktok.com/@ricunlimited https://vt.tiktok.com/yL8Nnq/m