By Giel Eduard Acot Orillosa
Every administration faces criticism. Strong administrations answer critics. Confident administrations engage in debate. Weak administrations are often accused of trying to silence those who challenge them.
The true measure of a constitutional democracy is not how it treats those who support the government. It is how it treats those who question its actions.
This issue has become increasingly important in the Philippines today. Political events are rarely viewed by citizens as isolated incidents. People observe patterns among investigations, arrests, prosecutions, appointments and controversies. Whether these interpretations are accurate or not, they influence public opinion and shape the political environment.
For many Filipinos, the current political divide can be traced to the November 2023 controversy involving Vice President Sara Duterte’s confidential and intelligence funds. The administration described the issue as a legitimate review of public spending. Her supporters, however, viewed it as a political move designed to weaken her influence and create a path toward impeachment.
The truth of that interpretation remains a matter of public debate. However, the controversy clearly changed the relationship between former political allies and turned cooperation into open conflict.
Since then, other issues have been examined through the same political lens. Investigations involving opposition figures, legal cases involving outspoken critics and controversies surrounding individuals connected to groups such as Brave18 have contributed to concerns among some sectors that democratic space for criticism may be shrinking.
Each case must be judged based on evidence and due process. No person should be considered guilty without proper legal proceedings. However, governments must also recognize that public trust depends not only on legal outcomes but on the appearance of fairness and consistency.
The continuing rallies across the country reflect broader public concerns about transparency, accountability and justice. These demonstrations are not simply expressions of support for one political group or opposition to another. They represent a demand that government institutions remain open, responsible, and accountable to the people.
These expectations are consistent with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s own call for accountability when he challenged officials with the words, “Mahiya naman kayo.” The statement created public hope that corruption would be addressed regardless of political connections.
Yet many citizens continue to ask difficult questions. Where are those responsible for alleged irregularities? Why have some investigations slowed down? Why have some officials facing public criticism later received new government positions?
Government appointments and legal processes may follow constitutional procedures and they do not automatically prove wrongdoing. However, public confidence is affected when accountability appears uneven or selective.
The Supreme Court’s review of the national budget process has further highlighted the importance of transparency. The national budget is not merely a government document; it represents the priorities of the nation and the use of taxpayers’ money. Questions involving budget insertions, legislative procedures, and documentation cannot simply be dismissed as technical matters because they affect public trust in government institutions.
History shows that governments rarely lose legitimacy because critics are present. They lose legitimacy when citizens believe their concerns are ignored or dismissed. Suppressing criticism does not remove public doubt. It often increases it. Investigations involving prominent critics attract greater attention, while attempts to limit dissent can turn political opponents into symbols of resistance.
A democratic government must respond through transparency, accountability and respect for constitutional rights. Records should be available. Institutions should operate independently. Laws should apply equally to supporters and opponents. Citizens, however, also carry responsibility. Public discussions must be guided by facts, evidence and respect for democratic principles. Accountability must not become an excuse for spreading misinformation or encouraging hostility.
Freedom of expression is not a threat to democracy. It is one of its foundations. The future of the Philippine Republic will not depend on how effectively it silences criticism. It will depend on how honestly it responds to criticism.
Governments may win cases, survive controversies and outlast political opponents. But they cannot force citizens to trust them.
Trust is earned through transparency, fairness and honest answers. Once public confidence is lost, restoring it becomes the greatest challenge any administration can face.
