Cutting Ties with a Butterfly

By Senate of the Philippines - [1] website, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=178329661

There was a time when Senator Loren Legarda represented something than politics.

Before she entered government Legarda built a reputation as one of the country’s respected journalists. She studied at Assumption College San Lorenzo. Then at the University of the Philippines Diliman where she pursued Broadcast Communication. Even before she became a senator she was already a known figure in Philippine media working as a television reporter and anchor whose career focused on public affairs, disaster reporting, environmental advocacy and social issues.

For Filipinos, especially women Legarda once symbolized intelligence, professionalism and honest public service. She was not originally known as a politician who attacks others or a traditional politician. She entered politics with the image of someone educated, articulate and deeply aware of the responsibilities that come with trust.

That is why the backlash against her today feels different.

The criticism surrounding Legarda after the Senate proceedings is not just anger from people who disagree with her politics. For former supporters, artists, students and civil society figures it feels personal. They are not reacting to someone they do not know. They are reacting to someone they once admired.

Over the week public frustration grew after her actions during the Senate impeachment proceedings involving Vice President Sara Duterte. Critics accused Legarda of maneuvering and abandoning the principles she once stood for. The backlash became visible immediately.

Artists and poets involved in the initiative Kislap-Diwa publicly cut ties with Legarda saying they could no longer associate themselves with her recent political actions. The project itself had once reflected Legarda’s standing advocacy for Filipino culture and heritage making the split especially symbolic. The people who once worked with her under the banner of culture and intellectual discussion were now openly distancing themselves from her.

More striking was the reaction from her own alma mater.

The student council of Assumption College San Lorenzo publicly supported calls to remove Legarda’s portrait from the school’s "Wall of Empowered Women " citing concerns about accountability, integrity and alignment with the institution’s values. Reports later showed that her portrait had already been removed or replaced with a frame.

That image alone carries a lot of symbolism.

A woman once celebrated as a role model by one of the country’s prestigious schools was now being publicly questioned by the very institution that helped shape her identity. This was not a political disagreement. It was disappointment.

Part of that disappointment comes from a standing criticism attached to Legarda throughout her political career: the perception that she became a politician who frequently shifts alliances.

In politics this term refers to politicians who frequently shift alliances, coalitions or party affiliations depending on where power is moving. Legarda’s career has repeatedly reflected this pattern.

She first rose nationally under opposition politics during the -Marcos democratic era and was associated with reform-oriented governance. Over the years however her alliances shifted across administrations and political blocs. She aligned herself at points with the opposition, with centrist coalitions with the Arroyo administration later with the Aquino administration on selected issues and eventually with the Duterte-aligned UniTeam coalition during the 2022 elections.

Her party affiliations and coalition partnerships evolved depending on the political climate. While political flexibility is common in the Philippines critics argue that Legarda mastered survival politics to an extent that blurred consistency.

To her defenders this adaptability showed pragmatism.

To her critics it showed opportunism.

That distinction matters now because many Filipinos increasingly see the recent Senate events not as isolated incidents but as the culmination of years of political repositioning. The perception growing around Legarda is that she no longer stands firmly for convictions but instead for preservation.

That perception hurts more because of who she used to be.

Loren Legarda did not enter life as a traditional politician. She came from journalism a profession built on questioning power defending truth and maintaining accountability. Her early image was rooted in intellect and civic responsibility. She spoke the language of reform, environmental protection, culture and public service.

Which raises the question many former admirers are now asking:

What happened to Loren Legarda?

How does someone who once represented thinking become associated with the same transactional politics many Filipinos claim to hate?

Perhaps the tragedy of Loren Legarda’s career is not that she changed parties. Many politicians do. The deeper issue is that along the way she appeared to lose the identity that made people believe in her in the first place.

The young journalist who once built credibility by speaking truth to power eventually became a politician accused of protecting power instead.

Maybe that is why the backlash today feels so intense.

Because when people lose faith, in a politician they never trusted they move on easily.

When people lose faith in someone they once believed represented intelligence, integrity and principle the disappointment cuts much deeper.