“Let me be clear: tolerance does not mean agreeing with opposing views”
THE arrest of former President Duterte has heightened political tensions in the Philippines.
His supporters perceive the arrest as politically motivated and have organized protests across various regions and even in other countries where we have overseas Filipino workers.
On the other hand, families of drug war victims and human rights organizations see it as a long-overdue step toward justice for the thousands killed in Duterte’s war against drugs, a grand criminal enterprise as the Quadcom hearings have exposed.
I am with the latter and condemn strongly those who have been attacking the victims’ families and redtagging human rights advocates.
But I have friends who are in the other side of this issue, among others Martin Delgra, the former Chair of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board, who was present when Duterte was arrested and tried to stop his transfer to The Hague.
Martin, whom we fondly call Chuckbong, was a fellow Jesuit Volunteer in 1981-1982 and we continue to be friends 44 years after that volunteer year.
In 1990, on my first year as a lawyer, when I worked on an ancestral domain case in Basilan, where he was a lawyer for the Catholic Church, he made sure I I could do my work safely.
When he was LTFRB Chair, he would listen to me patiently as I sought to persuade him to be more open to new forms of transportation modalities like that offered by Grab and Angkas.
More than the picture of him putting his arms around Duterte, it is that image of Chuckbong in Basilan and in LTFRB that sticks with me. That is why in the immediate aftermath of the Duterte arrest, we communicated with each other and affirmed our friendship.
But let me be clear: tolerance does not mean agreeing with opposing views and on Duterte’s crimes against humanity,
I vehemently disagree with Chuckbong and consider his support for Duterte fundamentally wrong. But I will communicate that in a way that allows dialogue to happen.
Incidentally, through the years, like many of us in Mindanao, we have close relatives and friends who were/are Duterte supporters.
But I never unfriended them, even as I have asserted/asserted my human rights position assertively and consistently. Now that I have stage 4 cancer, I will certainly not want to be estranged from relatives and friends because of politics.
My late mother, who was one of the oldest Duterte appointees and a trustee of the National Museum, and I first argued about Duterte.
Eventually, we were able to “bracket,” to use a term from phenomenology, our political differences. Before she died in Oct. 2020, she came around to appreciate my position.
A key aspect of civil discourse is critical thinking—examining evidence, questioning sources, and being open to new information. Tolerance does not mean agreeing with opposing views, but it does mean allowing space for different opinions to exist..
Here are some key strategies for maintaining civil discourse:
Practice active listening, which means making a genuine effort to understand the other person’s perspective. This builds mutual respect and creates a more constructive conversation.
Debates can become highly emotional, but relying on verifiable facts helps keep discussions rational. Before forming strong opinions, research credible sources and be open to correcting misinformation—whether it comes from you or the other side.
Hostile or aggressive language escalates tensions quickly. Instead of attacking individuals, focus on debating ideas and policies.
Avoid personal insults, name-calling, or sweeping generalizations that could shut down productive conversation.
Even among opposing viewpoints, there is often a shared value or concern, such as the well-being of the nation or local community. Recognizing these commonalities can foster cooperation, encourage compromise, and open pathways for mutual understanding.
Not all debates will lead to consensus, and that is perfectly fine. The objective of civil discourse is not to “win” but to exchange perspectives and encourage critical thinking. Walking away with a broader understanding of different viewpoints—even without agreement—is a meaningful achievement. In this sense, civil discord can bear fruit.
By approaching discussions with patience, respect, and open-mindedness, we can contribute to a more informed, united, and democratic society, even when tackling difficult issues.
Website: tonylavina.com Facebook: tonylavs X and Bluesky: tonylavs