The political environment in the Philippines is a battleground where rhetoric is often as lethal as policy, and loyalty is constantly tested by crisis. The Diehard Duterte Supporters (DDS) have long been defined by their unwavering devotion and aggressive defense of their political patrons, a political army forged in the heat of social media wars and mass rallies. However, the movement is now facing a devastating new wave of public condemnation, summarized by the viral accusation that the DDS are now characterized by “pure foolishness and disobedience,” having been “infected” by the very behavioral traits they admire in their leaders.

This searing critique, echoing across social and traditional media, is not just another political insult; it represents a crystallization of years of friction between the DDS and the rest of the political spectrum. It suggests that the tactics and language pioneered by their principal leaders—known for their raw, confrontational, and often rule-breaking style—have been adopted wholesale by the base, resulting in actions perceived by many as counterproductive, irrational, and fundamentally disruptive to democratic discourse. The central question the public is now wrestling with is: Has the pursuit of unyielding loyalty pushed this massive political force beyond the boundaries of civil engagement, turning their passion into a destructive and self-defeating political liability?

The Contagion of Confrontation: Mirroring the Leader’s Style

The DDS movement was built on an appeal to visceral, anti-establishment sentiment. Their leaders achieved massive popularity, in part, by deliberately flouting traditional political norms, using rough language, issuing controversial statements, and displaying a consistent disregard for political correctness or diplomatic restraint. For the DDS base, this unpolished, confrontational style was seen as authenticity—a welcome contrast to the perceived hypocrisy of the traditional political elite.

However, the current accusation suggests that this leadership style has become a contagion for the followers. The critique implies that the DDS have absorbed and amplified the most extreme elements of their leaders’ behavior, manifesting in their own political actions as:

“Foolish” Discourse (Nahihibang): This refers to the online tendency of the DDS to engage in arguments that prioritize blind loyalty over factual accuracy. Critics accuse them of defending the indefensible, spreading misinformation without critical thought, and engaging in circular logic that appears irrational to outside observers. The passion for the person has superseded the adherence to truth, leading to an intellectual isolation that critics interpret as a form of derangement.

“Disobedient/Unruly” Behavior (Pasaway): This points to real-world and online actions that violate social norms, rules, or democratic principles. This includes aggressive online bullying, coordinating harassment campaigns against critics, ignoring traffic rules during rallies, or demonstrating an entitlement to break rules because they feel their political cause justifies it. The “pasaway” label signifies a lack of discipline and respect for civil order—a direct replication of the “rules are meant to be broken” attitude often celebrated by their leaders.

The core of the criticism is that the DDS is not merely supporting their leaders; they are becoming their leaders’ most chaotic mirror image. They are now so deeply entrenched in the style of confrontation that they are perceived as incapable of engaging in reasoned debate, making their political contribution seem increasingly senseless and disruptive to the functioning of the state and society.

The Problem of Unquestioning Loyalty in a Democracy

The DDS movement is a profound case study in the perils of unquestioning loyalty in a democracy. In a healthy political system, followers are expected to challenge, critique, and hold their leaders accountable. For the DDS, however, loyalty is viewed as absolute and unconditional, often eclipsing national interest or democratic principle.

This absolute loyalty generates several political vulnerabilities:

Immunity to Facts: When a political base is immune to facts that contradict their leader’s narrative, they lose credibility with the broader public. Their fierce defense of every controversial statement or policy, regardless of its legal or ethical foundation, makes them appear politically compromised and intellectually dishonest.

Political Isolation: The refusal to find common ground or compromise with any opposing political faction—often labeling critics with derogatory terms—has led to their extreme political isolation. In a political system that relies on building coalitions, the DDS’s confrontational purity has made them difficult to work with, even for their own nominal allies (as seen in the rising tensions with the current administration).

Self-Defeating Actions: The label of “foolish” and “disobedient” often sticks because the actions of the DDS frequently undermine their own political goals. Aggressive online attacks, for instance, rarely convert opponents; they only solidify resistance, creating a powerful emotional opposition that the DDS’s vitriol cannot defeat.

The current public mood suggests a growing consensus that the DDS’s unwavering devotion, once seen as a source of strength, is now their greatest political weakness—a fundamental obstacle to their growth and acceptance by the undecided middle ground.

The Role of Social Media: Amplifying the Extreme

Social media platforms, particularly Facebook, have been the engine and the battlefield for the DDS. These platforms provided the perfect environment for the “contagion” to spread, amplifying the most emotionally charged and extreme forms of political expression.

The algorithms prioritize engagement, which often translates to conflict and outrage. When DDS supporters embrace the confrontational style of their leaders, they are rewarded with visibility and validation from their internal echo chamber. This process creates a self-reinforcing cycle where the most disobedient and foolish voices—those using all caps, personal insults, and unsubstantiated claims—are given the loudest megaphones.

The result is a warped public perception. While many DDS supporters may be quiet, reasonable individuals, the collective image of the movement on social media is defined by the vocal minority who engage in rabid defense and aggressive attacks. This allows critics to easily generalize and label the entire movement as inherently “unruly” or “deranged,” a phenomenon that has severely damaged the DDS’s brand credibility in the national political arena.

The Political Future: Breaking the Mold

The viral critique that the DDS is “copying their masters” in disruptive ways places an intense pressure on the movement to evolve or face political extinction. The constant association with foolishness and disobedience is toxic and unsustainable, particularly in the lead-up to future elections.

For the DDS to regain political relevance and shed the debilitating labels, they must embark on a difficult internal transformation:

Shift from Loyalty to Principle: They must demonstrate that their support is based on a clear, constructive political ideology (e.g., anti-corruption, federalism, etc.) rather than just personal fealty to a single family. This means critiquing their leaders when necessary—a concept that currently seems anathema to the movement’s core.

Embrace Disciplined Discourse: The DDS must actively police their own ranks, publicly condemning the most extreme forms of online harassment and misinformation. They must show that they can engage in debate with facts and reason, not just raw emotion and personal attacks.

Find a New Voice: The movement needs a new generation of leaders and spokespeople who can articulate their core concerns using civil, persuasive language. They must prove they can command respect, not just fear or ridicule, from the national political establishment.

The current political environment—marked by internal legal pressures on their leaders and external condemnation of their behavior—is testing the DDS to its core. The question of whether their followers are merely “disobedient” or genuinely “infected” by a self-defeating political style is the existential crisis facing the movement. Ultimately, the survival of the DDS depends on their ability to prove that their passion can be channeled into constructive political action, rather than just acting as a perpetual, chaotic echo of their former glory.