When silence betrays

By Herman M. Lagon

Social media has been awash with calls for silence. “Do not speak if you are not fully informed,” they say. “Research first before you comment,” they insist. At first glance, staying silent seems wise, but beneath it lurks dangerous passivity. Silence is not always wisdom; sometimes, it is indifference. When major events shake the nation—like Duterte’s arrest—the urge to disengage is strong, but apathy only normalizes complacency.

Staying silent in the face of injustice is not neutrality—it is taking the oppressor’s side. History shows that inaction shields the wrongdoers, not the victims. Martial Law thrived on fear. Nazi Germany’s silent citizens enabled genocide. Today, ignoring Duterte’s bloody legacy allows impunity to persist. Staying quiet is not prudence; it is surrender.

The claim that one must thoroughly research before speaking out is sometimes an excuse for apathy rather than a genuine pursuit of knowledge. While informed discourse is essential, the kind of “research” some people advocate for is often passive, selective, and done with confirmation bias. It is not about understanding the truth; it is about justifying silence. Moreover, in a society where access to information is skewed by propaganda, waiting for the perfect understanding before taking a stand is an impossible standard. Many of those who insist on this “prudence” do not research to understand; they research to rationalize their inaction.

This cultivated passivity is not harmless. It breeds a culture of mediocrity where people become too comfortable with the status quo. In workplaces, it manifests as employees who witness unfair policies yet choose not to challenge them. It turns into students who see injustice but do not question it in schools. In governance, it results in politicians who make decisions unchecked by public scrutiny. The habit of silence erodes democratic participation, making way for a society that tolerates and eventually expects corruption and abuse.

Apathy, dressed as prudence, has real consequences. It dulls the moral instincts of an entire population. It fosters blind obedience, rewarding those who conform and punishing those who challenge authority. The effect is visible in how authoritarian leaders maintain control—not just through fear but through the willing passivity of the governed. Studies have shown that in nations with strong authoritarian rule, disengagement is often a greater obstacle to democracy than outright oppression (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018). When people are conditioned to “wait until they know everything,” they are more likely to disengage altogether.

In the context of Duterte’s case, the silence of some Filipinos is alarming. Those who once supported his iron-fisted rule now avoid discussing his potential accountability. Those who opposed him are growing exhausted from years of activism, while some fence-sitters choose not to form an opinion at all. The trial at The Hague is not just about Duterte; it is a test of the country’s moral compass. If Filipinos treat it as someone else’s concern, then impunity wins, and justice remains elusive.

The notion that “opinions without knowledge only add to the noise” is true in some cases, but it is also weaponized to stifle discourse. While reckless statements can mislead, silence can be just as harmful. The goal should not be to mute voices but to guide them toward informed engagement. This is the beauty of dialectics. Every significant social movement in history began with ordinary people willing to speak despite their imperfect understanding. The fight for Philippine independence did not wait for every Filipino to be fully educated on Spanish colonial law. The People Power Revolution was not led by constitutional experts alone. Action precedes perfect knowledge, and often, it is the act of engaging that deepens one’s understanding.

There is a moral duty to speak up, especially in a society where power is often abused. Caring about social issues is not reckless—it is responsible. Questioning, challenging, and staying engaged should be encouraged, not silenced. Speaking up and staying informed go hand in hand. Silence, when systemic, is not wisdom; it is a strategy that benefits those who wish to govern unchallenged.

Of course, there are appropriate moments for reflection before speaking, but these should not be used as permanent excuses for disengagement. A democracy thrives on active participation, and that participation does not require a doctorate in political science. Standing up for justice takes both courage and conviction. Speaking out is not about having all the answers—it is about refusing to accept what is wrong and urgently choosing to do what is right.

As Ignatian spirituality says, genuine discernment means thinking critically, acting with conscience, and demanding accountability. True wisdom is not passive; it moves people toward meaningful action. It requires moral courage, not mere intellectual accumulation. Our concept of “pakialam”—often dismissed as unnecessary nosiness—is a civic virtue. To care, intervene, and speak up is not meddling; it is an essential part of a functioning society.

Duterte’s arrest is more than his reckoning—it is the nation’s. Filipinos must decide: Will they engage, question, and demand accountability, or let silence write the next chapter? Or will they continue to embrace a culture of silence, mistaking it for prudence? Justice is not served by those who wait in the wings. It is achieved by those who dare to speak, even when their voices shake.

The next time someone advises silence on a matter of public concern, question their motive. Are they promoting wisdom, or are they enforcing obedience? Injustice has never been defeated by those who waited for the perfect moment to act. It has been dismantled by those who refused to remain silent. A society that values quiet over courage invites its own downfall. Our country’s future depends not on those who choose silence but on those who refuse to let it be the final word.

***

Doc H fondly describes himself as a “student of and for life” who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with.