THERE is, as of this writing, no evidence publicly linking the attack on vlogger Mima Alicia to the DDS. We should therefore resist the temptation to assign criminal responsibility to an entire political movement simply because the victim happened to be a critic of the Dutertes. The rule of law demands evidence, not speculation, and our political preferences should never tempt us to abandon that principle. In a democratic society, justice must always be anchored on facts and due process, not on assumptions driven by political bias.
What is equally difficult to ignore, however, is the reaction of many apparent Duterte supporters on social media. Instead of expressing sympathy or calling for justice, many greeted news of her death with laughing emojis, mockery and words of celebration. Whether they represent the majority of Duterte supporters is impossible to know. But their reactions were visible enough to raise an uncomfortable question: What kind of political culture finds satisfaction in the violent death of a critic? Such reactions reveal a troubling erosion of empathy that should alarm anyone who values human dignity.
I ask that question not as a detached observer but as someone who has lived through years of political hostility from almost every direction. My experiences have given me a vantage point that is both personal and reflective of broader societal tensions.
Yellows and Pinks attacked me because of my political views. Some even circulated a petition urging De La Salle University (DLSU) to dismiss me. Rather than engage my arguments, they sought to silence me professionally. This kind of behavior undermines the very essence of academic freedom and open discourse.
An anonymous Pink blogger went even further. My suspension from the University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB) was mischaracterized online, and I was subjected to outrageous personal accusations, including a vile allegation involving my own family. The objective was plainly to destroy my credibility rather than answer what I had written. Such tactics demonstrate how political disagreements can devolve into deeply personal attacks.
The Yellow, Pink and militant Left also opposed my return to UPLB. In my view, a coordinated black propaganda campaign recycled false accusations about my years at DLSU. They also branded me a Marcos apologist simply because I argued that Philippine history should be taught fairly, acknowledging the failures of both the Marcoses and the Aquinos instead of reducing our past to simplistic heroes and villains. Intellectual honesty should not be mistaken for political allegiance.
Ironically, that balanced position did not spare me from attacks by Marcos loyalists. Whenever I criticized President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. or acknowledged that Ferdinand Marcos Sr. ruled as an authoritarian during martial law, I became their target as well. This illustrates how polarized our political environment has become, where nuance is often rejected.
I have therefore experienced criticism, insults and attempts at character assassination from nearly every political camp in the country. Such attacks are regrettable, but they are, unfortunately, part of the landscape of public discourse. They reflect a broader culture where disagreement is often met with hostility rather than dialogue.
Yet there is one distinction that I cannot ignore because it is rooted in my own experience. It is a distinction that speaks to the limits of acceptable political behavior.
Only people identifying themselves as DDS threatened me with physical violence. These threats were not abstract or rhetorical. They carried an unmistakable tone of menace that cannot be dismissed lightly.
That is not a statistical claim about every Duterte supporter. It is not an accusation against an entire movement. It is simply the truth of what I experienced. Personal experiences, while limited, can still illuminate important patterns in political behavior.
The difference between harsh criticism and threats of bodily harm is the difference between democracy and intimidation. A democracy survives noisy disagreement. It cannot flourish if political opponents come to fear for their safety. Fear has no place in a healthy democratic exchange.
For this reason, I believe the tone set by political leaders matters. In my view, the Duterte brand normalized a style of politics in which aggressive and threatening language became commonplace. Strong rhetoric alone does not make anyone responsible for another person’s actions, nor does it mean that all supporters embrace violence. But political language shapes political culture. When threats, vengeance and intimidation become familiar features of public discourse, some followers may come to see them as acceptable ways of dealing with opponents. Leaders must therefore be mindful of the example they set.
That possibility should concern all of us, regardless of political affiliation. It is a shared responsibility to ensure that our political environment remains respectful and humane.
If we condemn the celebration of violence only when it comes from our opponents, we have abandoned the principle of partisanship. Likewise, if we excuse threatening language because it comes from leaders we admire, we contribute to a political climate in which intimidation becomes easier to tolerate. Consistency in our moral standards is essential for preserving democratic values.
The lesson from the reactions to Mima Alicia’s death is not that one political movement should be collectively blamed for a crime without evidence. The lesson is that we should reject a politics that conditions people to rejoice when critics are harmed. Once that mindset takes root, democratic disagreement gives way to dehumanization. And when dehumanization becomes normalized, the foundations of democracy begin to erode.
I have been attacked by Yellows, Pinks, the militant Left and Marcos loyalists. Those experiences taught me that political intolerance is hardly confined to one ideology. But they also taught me that there is a line that should never be crossed. In my own experience, that line was crossed when political disagreement became a threat of physical violence. Recognizing this line is crucial if we are to protect the integrity of our democratic institutions.
No democracy should ever regard that as normal. We must collectively reaffirm our commitment to civility, respect and the rule of law in all political engagements. Only by doing so can we ensure that our democracy remains resilient and just for future generations.
Antonio P. Contreras, PhD, is a professor at the University of the Philippines Los Baños and vice chairman of the board of the state-run PTVNI.
