Do we really believe Vice Ganda?

By Noel Galon de Leon

“Where is justice?”

When Vice Ganda stood before the graduates of the University of the Philippines College of Media and Communication Class of 2026 and asked that simple yet piercing question, the room reportedly erupted in applause. The speech quickly spread across social media, not because she revealed something Filipinos had never heard before, but because she articulated what many had long felt yet struggled to express. Her words reflected a frustration shared by countless citizens who believe that justice in the Philippines often depends more on wealth, political influence, personal connections, and social status than on the equal application of the law. It was not merely a graduation address. It became a national conversation about fairness, accountability, institutional trust, and the kind of society that today’s graduates are about to inherit.

Listening to her speech, I found very little to disagree with. In fact, I believe Vice Ganda deserved the standing ovation she received. For years, she has demonstrated that entertainment and social commentary do not have to exist in separate worlds. Throughout her career, she has consistently used comedy to expose prejudice, challenge discrimination, and question deeply rooted stereotypes about gender, sexuality, poverty, and power. Millions laugh because she is genuinely entertaining, but millions continue listening because beneath the humor lies an unmistakable awareness of the realities ordinary Filipinos experience every day. She has earned credibility not only through popularity but through years of connecting with audiences on issues that extend beyond show business.

Yet admiration should never silence inquiry. The question that stayed with me after hearing about her speech was not whether she was correct—I believe she was. The question is whether we know why we believe her. There is a profound difference between agreeing with someone’s ideas because they are supported by evidence and sound reasoning and agreeing simply because we admire the person delivering them. That distinction matters, especially today, when social media rewards personalities more than arguments. We increasingly measure credibility through likes, shares, and followers rather than through careful examination of facts, evidence, and logical reasoning.

We now live in an age where influence often travels faster than truth. A speech delivered by a celebrity can reach millions within hours, while years of academic research on the same issue may never leave university libraries or specialized journals. Popularity has become a shortcut to credibility, and that reality should concern every democratic society. Public conversations increasingly revolve around personalities rather than principles, and many people unconsciously adopt opinions because trusted public figures express them. When fame becomes the primary basis for persuasion, thoughtful public discourse risks becoming secondary to entertainment and emotional appeal.

This is not Vice Ganda’s fault. If anything, she has earned the right to be heard. She built her platform through decades of hard work, resilience, creativity, and an extraordinary ability to connect with ordinary Filipinos. Coming from humble beginnings, she transformed herself into one of the country’s most influential media personalities without abandoning the language, humor, and authenticity that made people feel understood. Her success represents perseverance, courage, and the determination to overcome social barriers. Those accomplishments deserve genuine admiration, and they explain why so many Filipinos naturally pay attention whenever she chooses to speak about issues that matter.

The real problem lies elsewhere. It lies in our growing tendency to treat celebrities as the final authorities on questions that require continuous public debate and critical reflection. We have become increasingly comfortable outsourcing our political thinking to personalities we admire. Sometimes they are actors, musicians, influencers, television hosts, athletes, or internet personalities. We celebrate them when they echo our beliefs and condemn them when they do not. In both situations, however, we remain trapped in the same habit of allowing personalities to dominate conversations that should ultimately be guided by evidence, constitutional principles, historical understanding, and informed public discourse rather than personal popularity.

Ironically, Vice Ganda herself would probably encourage us to think independently rather than simply accept everything she says. A university is precisely the place where ideas should be challenged, not merely celebrated. The graduates sitting before her were not trained to become passive audiences who applaud every popular opinion. They were educated to investigate claims, verify information, critique assumptions, and ask difficult questions—even when those questions are directed at people they deeply admire. If her speech inspired anything, I hope it inspired intellectual courage rather than unquestioning agreement. That, after all, is the true spirit of higher education and the foundation of meaningful democratic participation.

Vice Ganda’s message about justice deserves serious consideration because it reflects realities that many Filipinos recognize from their own experiences. Court cases often move painfully slowly, economic inequality influences access to competent legal representation, and public confidence in institutions rises and falls depending on how fairly laws appear to be enforced. These concerns extend far beyond politics or entertainment because they affect everyday life and shape citizens’ trust in democratic institutions. When someone with Vice Ganda’s influence chooses to amplify these issues before young graduates, she performs an important civic function by reminding us that citizenship does not end after casting a vote. It requires constant vigilance, informed participation, and a willingness to hold institutions accountable.

Even truthful messages, however, should never be exempt from thoughtful examination. Democracy depends on citizens who evaluate ideas instead of merely admiring personalities. We should applaud Vice Ganda because her argument raises essential questions about justice, not simply because she is Vice Ganda. Tomorrow another celebrity may deliver an equally passionate speech that reaches a completely different conclusion. If our standard for believing someone is based primarily on fame rather than careful reasoning, then our convictions become as unstable as the next viral video appearing on our timelines. Principles rooted in evidence should always outlast trends driven by popularity.

That is why I hesitate whenever I see people declaring that Vice Ganda has become the nation’s moral voice. No single individual should carry that burden—not because she lacks integrity, but because democracy is healthiest when no one is placed beyond scrutiny. Public figures become stronger when citizens ask thoughtful questions instead of offering automatic praise. Accountability is not disrespect; it is one of the highest forms of respect we can give to anyone whose words influence public opinion. The more influential the speaker, the greater our responsibility to engage critically with what is being said rather than accepting it without reflection.

Perhaps the deeper lesson of Vice Ganda’s speech is not found in the speech itself but in our collective response to it. Did we share her words because we reflected on their meaning, or because everyone else was sharing them? Did we examine her arguments, or did we simply celebrate another viral moment? Did we leave the conversation with a deeper understanding of justice, or merely with another inspirational quotation to repost online? These questions matter because democracies are weakened not only by corruption or injustice but also by intellectual complacency. A society that stops questioning eventually becomes a society that is easily persuaded by whoever commands the largest audience.

Vice Ganda reminded us to ask, “Where is justice?” That is an important question, and one that deserves continued public reflection. But perhaps there is another question that deserves equal attention: Where is our critical thinking? Justice requires more than courageous speeches. It requires citizens who are willing to think beyond applause, beyond celebrity, beyond algorithms, and beyond the emotional momentum of viral content. If Vice Ganda’s address accomplished anything, I hope it encouraged us not simply to believe her but to examine her ideas with the seriousness they deserve. Because the strongest democracy is not one where everyone agrees with the loudest voice. It is one where every voice, no matter how famous, is listened to carefully, questioned honestly, and ultimately judged not by popularity but by the enduring strength of its ideas.

***

Noel Galon de Leon is a writer and professor at the University of the Philippines Visayas, where he teaches in the Division of Professional Education and at UP High School in Iloilo. He is also the Secretary of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts-National Committee on Literary Arts.