Political psychology has provided a wealth of knowledge about how opposing groups and political identities discursively construct and position each other. However, what if formerly united populist entities decided to face each other off in the political arena? In this study, we explore narratives of the Marcos and Duterte camps in the Philippines as they face off each other in a war of words. Using positioning theory, we ask the question - how do supporters of populist figures position the two politicians? To answer our research question, we used text mining to analyze the Facebook posts and comments in the official pages of President Marcos and Vice President Duterte across multiple months since the start of their fallout last year. We then used social network analysis to identify the word baskets used by the public in positioning the two populists. Afterwards, we interpretatively crafted the storylines unique to each side. Using positioning analysis, we found that both sides position the opposing figure as being illegitimate rulers, while legitimizing their own side. Interestingly, the narratives used for legitimizing and delegitimizing were similar - stories of drug abuse, corruption, and being puppets of superpowers (namely, the USA and China). There were also shifts in narratives, where early in the fight, the Marcos camp tend to take a more aggressive stance, while the Duterte camp was more compromising and emotion-heavy. However, more recent events saw a flipping in the narratives, where Marcos became more defensive, while the Duterte camp taking the role of the aggressor. Our results show the unique dynamic in the battle of populists, and give us a glimpse on how the public responds to this dynamics by providing discourses of legitimacy. We then discuss how we can strengthen our democratic institutions to adapt to the rise of populism.