I’ve deliberately held off on commenting on the Leni Robredo–Israeli ambassador controversy because I didn’t want to add another knee-jerk reaction to an issue that deserves more thought than a Facebook comment section usually allows.
So here’s where I stand.
A courtesy call is not an endorsement. But I also don’t think “it was just a courtesy call” should end the conversation.
Leni Robredo is the mayor of Naga. If a foreign ambassador comes to her city and requests a meeting, I don’t think she has an obligation to slam the door simply because she disagrees with, or is troubled by, the policies of that ambassador’s government. That’s part of being a public official. Governments talk to governments. Diplomats meet officials. You don’t have to like a government to deal with its representatives.
But I understand why people are uncomfortable with this particular meeting.
Because context matters.
This isn’t an Israeli ambassador visiting Naga in some political vacuum. This is happening while Gaza remains a devastating humanitarian issue, and while Israel’s government is facing intense international scrutiny over its conduct there. So yes, people are going to look at a photograph of a Philippine public official receiving an Israeli representative and ask what that gesture means.
I think they’re entitled to ask.
What I don’t think is fair is jumping from that photograph to “Leni supports Israel” or “Leni supports what Israel is doing in Gaza.”
We don’t know that.
And frankly, we shouldn’t have to invent a politician’s position to criticize her. There is enough to question about the actual decision and its symbolism without putting words in her mouth.
But the opposite extreme bothers me, too.
Leni isn’t a private citizen walking into a hotel lobby. She’s the mayor of a city, but for many Filipinos, she also represents a particular idea of what public service and good governance can look like. Her political identity has come to mean something beyond the office she currently holds. That is precisely why people scrutinize her actions more closely, and why a photograph that might be routine for another local official can carry a very different weight when it involves her.
That creates a higher expectation.
She could meet the ambassador. She could be gracious. She could talk about agriculture, disaster preparedness, food security, or whatever legitimate issues were discussed.
And I think it’s fair to ask whether, in that conversation, there was also room to acknowledge the suffering of Palestinian civilians.
That’s the part I wish we’d talk about more.
Why do we keep treating diplomacy and moral clarity as if they’re mutually exclusive?
You can sit across the table from someone without agreeing with everything they represent.
You can be civil without being silent.
You can maintain diplomatic relations without checking your conscience at the door.
And we’ve seen Leni do this before. She has met Bongbong Marcos. She has welcomed Sara Duterte into her home. We didn’t suddenly assume those meetings meant she endorsed everything they stood for. We understood that sometimes, public officials meet people they disagree with. Why should we abandon that distinction now?
And, yes, you can criticize Leni Robredo without suddenly becoming a Marcos supporter, an anti-Leni troll, or whatever label people feel like throwing around when they don’t want to engage with the actual argument.
Likewise, defending her doesn’t require pretending that every decision she makes is beyond criticism.
And this is where I keep thinking about Rosas, and the words that accompanied Leni throughout the campaign:
At hindi ko maipapangako angKulay rosas na mundo para sa’yo
At hindi ko maiilawan ang lahat ng anino
Pero sisikapin ko
I think that’s worth remembering now.
The promise was never that Leni would make everything beautiful, solve every problem, or somehow remove every shadow. It was an acknowledgment that the shadows would still be there, and that the work would be in trying to confront them.
So I don’t condemn Leni for meeting the ambassador.
But I also don’t think her supporters should be so defensive that they stop asking whether this was a moment when she could have said something more, especially about the suffering of Palestinians.
Because when you’re Leni Robredo, people aren’t only looking at the office you’re holding. They’re looking at what they believe that office represents.
And that’s why I think it’s fair to ask what she chose to say once she was in that room.
Free Palestine, yes. But I think we Leni supporters should free ourselves, too, from the idea that standing by her means standing behind everything she does.