Sara Duterte has embarked on what appears to be a speaking tour abroad intended to reverse the adverse political climate created by her impeachment trial. The strategy is understandable. When a political figure finds herself under intense public scrutiny, the instinct is often to take the message directly to the people. The problem, however, is that she is largely speaking to OFW audiences that have already made up their minds. These are loyal supporters whose political idolatry leaves little room for persuasion. Instead, every gathering merely reinforces beliefs that already exist.
That reality would not necessarily be a problem if her speeches succeeded in broadening her appeal beyond her political base. Instead, they seem to achieve precisely the opposite. Rather than correcting misconceptions or presenting compelling arguments in her own defense, she repeatedly makes statements that reveal poor judgment, a weak grasp of the issues, or an apparent failure to appreciate the implications of her own words. Every attempt to defend herself becomes another opportunity for critics to question her competence and credibility.
It is a familiar pattern among political leaders who have grown accustomed to impunity. Confidence gradually transforms into overconfidence. Certainty evolves into complacency. Eventually, self-awareness disappears altogether. They begin to assume that every statement they make strengthens their position, when in reality each public appearance simply supplies fresh ammunition to their critics. Sara Duterte increasingly embodies that pattern.
One recent example is her response when asked about the proposed Pax Silica initiative. Whether one supports or opposes the project, any meaningful discussion requires an understanding of what it actually is. Pax Silica remains a proposed strategic initiative still undergoing planning, negotiations, regulatory review and environmental assessment. It has not been approved, nor has construction begun. Yet when she was asked about it, she appeared woefully unfamiliar with its basic details. Her answer suggested her ignorance, an unfortunate showing for someone who, at the very least, should be well-informed about major policy issues in the national discourse. For a public official who aspires to the presidency, this is a serious lapse. It also raises questions about the quality of advice she receives and whether she is adequately briefed on matters she chooses to comment on publicly. In politics, ignorance is rarely neutral. It is often consequential.
A second example is even more disturbing because it strikes at the integrity of international institutions. Sara Duterte publicly insinuated that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is effectively on the payroll of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and former senator Antonio Trillanes IV. That is an extraordinary allegation.
Extraordinary allegations demand extraordinary evidence. Yet none has been presented. To suggest that an international judicial institution is secretly controlled by political opponents without credible proof is not merely irresponsible rhetoric. It undermines public confidence in legal institutions by encouraging supporters to dismiss unfavorable rulings as products of conspiracy rather than law and evidence. Political disagreement is legitimate. But invoking vast, unproven conspiracies involving international courts only further reveal her gross ignorance of how international institutions work.
She even suggested that the ICC focuses only on Black individuals, apparently without bothering to examine its own record. The court has issued arrest warrants or pursued cases involving non-Black figures, including Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The irony is almost comical: in attempting to portray her father as a victim of racial bias, she overlooked the obvious fact that Rodrigo Duterte himself is not “Black.”
Her most astonishing statement, however, concerns the killings associated with her father’s antidrug campaign. Speaking before supporters, Sara Duterte suggested that many of the deaths attributed to the drug war may actually have been contract killings, arguing that hiring a gunman in the Philippines is allegedly cheap and easy. She even claimed that a killer could supposedly be hired for as little as P5,000.
Grant that argument for the sake of discussion. If many of those deaths were indeed contract killings rather than state-linked operations, those killings occurred during Rodrigo Duterte’s presidency.
The Duterte political narrative has long been consistent: that he restored peace and order, crushed criminality, and made Filipinos feel safe again. The image carefully cultivated over six years was that of a strong leader who succeeded where others failed.
Sara Duterte’s explanation creates a direct contradiction.
If contract killings were as easy and cheap as she claims, then the assertion that crime was decisively defeated becomes difficult to sustain. If gun-for-hire syndicates were so widespread that assassinations could be arranged for a few thousand pesos, then organized criminal violence was clearly not dismantled. That would suggest that serious criminal networks continued operating during the very administration celebrated for restoring order.
The two narratives cannot both be true. Either violent criminal syndicates were effectively suppressed, making contract killings rare and difficult, or they remained widespread enough that assassinations were easily arranged. Both propositions cannot stand together.
Ironically, in trying to deflect responsibility for the drug war deaths, Sara Duterte may have weakened a central pillar of her father’s legacy. It raises uncomfortable questions about law enforcement under his presidency. It also suggests that violence lives rent-free in her mind, an unsettling pattern for someone facing impeachment over her public threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., first lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former House speaker Martin Romualdez.
Perhaps this is the defining feature of her speaking tour. Each appearance is meant to repair political damage, yet each one generates new contradictions, unverified claims or statements that invite scrutiny rather than sympathy. Instead of expanding her appeal, she often reinforces the perception that she speaks from a position of ignorance.
Political communication is not measured by the enthusiasm of supporters. It is measured by the ability to persuade the skeptical. That requires discipline, preparation, intellectual honesty and self-awareness. Without these, speeches become not instruments of persuasion but demonstrations of vulnerability.
For now, Sara Duterte appears trapped in that cycle. She continues to shoot her mouth off, only to discover, again and again, that her foot lands squarely in it.
The author is a professor at the University of the Philippines Los Baños and vice chairman of the board of PTVNI.