IT is deeply disheartening that, despite an avalanche of documented evidence that, in my judgment, establishes Sara Duterte’s unfitness for public office, we still see academics in universities in Mindanao and across the country who continue to enable her and rationalize her conduct.
The disappointment is sharper because these are members of a community that teaches the importance of evidence, critical inquiry and accountability. When academic standing is used to give excuses the appearance of intellectual respectability, the failure reaches beyond an individual’s political preference. It undermines the standards we expect our universities to uphold.
I know what it means to be criticized, rejected, and “canceled” for a political choice. When I supported Rodrigo Duterte, many in the academic community condemned me. Some were my friends. I felt abused and maligned. Criticism from people whose respect and friendship mattered to me was painful.
I have since acknowledged my mistake. But the lesson I learned extends beyond changing my political position: there are consequences to the political choices we make. Feeling wounded by criticism does not, by itself, establish that the criticism is unjustified.
I had the right to support Rodrigo Duterte. Other people had the right to question that support, challenge my reasoning and judge its implications. My freedom to express a political preference did not oblige them to approve of it.
That experience informs how I view academics who now defend or enable Sara Duterte.
They have the right to support her. Faculty and students alike must enjoy the freedom to express unpopular political positions. Academic freedom and free speech cannot depend on whether we approve of the politician being defended. Article III, Section 4 and Article XIV, Section 5(2) of the Constitution protect expression and academic freedom, respectively.
But these rights cannot be invoked to demand immunity from public scrutiny.
A professor who defends Sara Duterte may be asked to explain the evidence supporting that defense. A student who repeats an assertion may be challenged on its accuracy. Neither can settle the dispute by announcing that they are exercising their freedom.
We already know they are free to speak. The question is whether what they say withstands examination.
When I defended Rodrigo Duterte, my academic credentials did not place my political judgment beyond criticism. The same standard should apply to those defending his daughter. We cannot demand rigorous reasoning from students, colleagues and political opponents, then suspend that requirement when our preferred politician becomes the subject of scrutiny.
Academic freedom carries professional responsibilities. The American Association of University Professors’ influential statement connects it to the pursuit of truth and emphasizes accuracy and care in public expression. Although this is a professional benchmark rather than Philippine law, its underlying principle is compelling: intellectual independence requires intellectual discipline.
A university community should therefore be willing to challenge arguments that obscure evidence, excuse evasions, or apply different standards to different politicians. It should examine how academic prestige is being used to lend credibility to claims that have not earned it.
This is where political support can become enabling: when it helps a powerful official evade accountability by presenting excuses as informed analysis.
No academic should be denied employment, blocked from promotion, or have professional advancement obstructed merely because of support for Sara Duterte. No student should receive a lower grade, lose a scholarship, or be deprived of academic opportunities because a professor disapproves of that student’s politics.
Hiring, promotion, assessment and access to opportunities should rest on relevant qualifications, performance and conduct. Political disagreement must not become a disguised test of professional eligibility. Any allegation of actual misconduct must be assessed through fair procedures and evidence.
I have resisted the use of my previous support for Rodrigo Duterte to undermine my employment or professional mobility. I should defend the same protection for those whose political choices I now oppose.
Yet protection from professional retaliation does not mean protection from public criticism. Academics who publicly defend Sara Duterte can be openly challenged. Their claims can be rebutted. Their selective reasoning can be exposed. Their political choices can be criticized for the consequences those choices help produce.
We can ask them to account for what they defend without trying to take away their livelihood.
And we must do so with facts and rational arguments.
My acknowledgment that I made a political mistake does not require me to declare every attack against me justified. Nor does our opposition to Sara Duterte entitle us to invent accusations against her supporters, distort their statements, or circulate rumors about them.
A falsehood does not become defensible because its target supports a politician we oppose. Personal humiliation does not acquire intellectual value simply because it is directed at someone whose reasoning we find objectionable.
Where disputes concern public funds, asset declarations, or constitutional compliance, we should examine the relevant records, distinguish allegations from established findings, and identify what remains uncertain. We should demand explanations that address the evidence and correct our own claims when they are wrong.
Article XI, Section 1 of the Constitution declares public office a public trust and requires accountability to the people. A politician’s supporters retain their freedom to speak; the politician retains the obligation to answer for the exercise of public power.
An academic community worthy of its name should sustain both principles. It should protect dissent while refusing to let invocations of freedom shut down scrutiny.
I learned that having the right to make a political choice does not free us from responsibility for that choice, and being criticized does not automatically make us victims of censorship.
Those who defend Sara Duterte should be afforded every opportunity to explain themselves. They should also expect their explanations to be examined, their contradictions challenged, and their conclusions contested.
We should hold one another accountable through truthful criticism and reasoned argument, while protecting employment and professional advancement from political retaliation. Academic freedom gives us room to make political choices. But it does not protect us from being labeled and cancelled. These are just and fair consequences.
The author is a professor at the University of the Philippines Los Baños and vice chairman of the board of PTVNI.
