Whenever Filipino journalist Raissa Robles posts about President-elect Rodrigo Duterte or the South China Sea on her blog, it collapses for reasons unknown to her.

“That’s why I abstain from writing about those two topics,” Robles says in a phone interview with the International Press Institute (IPI). “Every time I do, my blog goes down, it’s very suspicious.”

In the wake of Duterte’s election to the presidency last month, Robles says she and other journalists have dealt with increasing threats of violence. Robles personally has been threatened with death, physical abuse and rape, she recounts.

“I get tweets like – would you like me to bury you alive?” she recently said in an interview with National Public Radio (NPR).

While the Filipino media remains free from official censorship, there is growing backlash against journalists from Duterte supporters. Following the example of their soon-to-be president, the supporters are angry and outspoken online against reporters who speak ill of him. Many journalists do not want to engage with them online because of the vitriolic recoil.

When contradicted, some Duterte supporters lash out with expletives, name-calling, and intimidation. Robles herself admits to having practiced self-censorship and she says that while most media outlets are not necessarily fearful, they have become much more careful.

“This is the presidency that brings out the worst in people,” she comments.

Robles says she thinks the best defence to online threats is to make more people aware of them. When she receives a threat, she publicises it on social media so people know what is happening to her and other journalists. But, she notes, she still refrains from reporting on certain topics, such as drug-trafficking, because of the risk they pose.

The journalist expresses concern that Duterte will follow in the footsteps of former Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, who ruled from 1965 to 1986 and imposed martial law from 1972 to 1981. According to Robles, there was no such thing as a free press under Marcos’ rule.

Since Marcos’ departure, succeeding presidents have been mostly respectful of the media. However, Duterte has already broken with this precedent, showing overt contempt for the press. He instituted an unofficial personal boycott of the media, refusing to sit for interviews or attend press conferences. When he did attend, he insulted, catcalled and bullied journalists.

And that was before he said late last month that many of the numerous journalists who have lost their lives in the Philippines in recent decades deserved to die. The president-elect soon recanted and rephrased his remarks, but not before media outlets and press freedom advocates around the world expressed alarm.

“If you are an upright journalist, nothing will happen to you,” Duterte said in his initial comments. “Most of those killed, to be frank, have done something. You won’t be killed if you don’t do anything wrong.”

The Philippines is one of the most dangerous countries for journalists. According to the International Press Institute (IPI)’s Death Watch, at least 128 journalists have lost their lives in connection with their work there since 1997, including 32 killed in Maguindanao on Nov. 23, 2009 during a massacre attributed to the politically powerful Ampatuan clan.

The only country in which more journalists have died during that period was Iraq, with 232 deaths, and the next-highest tallies have come in Syria (93), Colombia (89), Mexico (86) and Pakistan (83).

Duterte, the former mayor of Davao City who is scheduled to be sworn into office as president on June 30, has not shied away from endorsing violence during his campaign. His most-popular nickname is “The Punisher” and in interviews he has claimed some degree of involvement in the killings of hundreds of kidnappers and drug traffickers, although he has also backtracked from that claim.

He has advocated reinstatement of the death penalty, vowed to increase military forces and promised to kill 100,000 criminals in his first six months in office.

While the Philippine press works to hold Duterte accountable by quoting those willing to speak out against him, they must deal with another problem. Duterte and his supporters have instigated a smear campaign against a number of traditional media outlets, utilising Facebook and other social media platforms to spread propaganda undermining journalists and their credibility.

Journalists in the Philippines have recently faced increased censorship for political views expressed on social media sites, including Twitter and Facebook. Several journalists and activists reported the removal of posts criticising the burial of Marcos in the country’s national military cemetery, Libingan ng mga Bayani, as well as posts condemning Duterte.

Social media accounts and pages, including that of the Economic Journalists of the Philippines, were also suspended. Facebook claimed that posts and accounts had been removed for violating community standards and authenticity policies, but later apologised and restored the content.

The Duterte campaign and its staff have refused to accredit major news outlets and reporters; so far, only supportive journalists and outlets have been invited to cover Duterte’s inauguration.

“There is an ongoing, systematic effort to make people not believe [the press],” Robles says of Duterte’s campaign. “In place of traditional media they are now accrediting members of their own social media to act as press…. He really intends to be harsh on the press the moment he assumes office on June 30.”

Robles recently published a book titled “Marcos Martial Law: Never Again”, detailing atrocities during the Marcos dictatorship. She says she hoped her book would serve as a warning to Filipinos whose memory of limited liberty during that period is fading. During a talk about her book at the University of Philippines, she noted similarities between the campaign and leadership styles of Duterte and Marcos, saying that Filipinos need to decide if they want a democracy or to allow another dictator to rule their country.

“A one-man rule, without Congress and with an emasculated judiciary, will be making laws as the ruler pleases, just like what Marcos did,” she laments.

One law that Robles says she fears Duterte will take advantage of once he assumes office is the Cybercrime Prevention Act. It criminalises online libel as well as speech that could incite or promote the overthrow of the government. Social media posts and accounts could be taken down, and individuals targeted under the law could face prison time.

Robles says she believes Duterte will take full advantage of this law to suppress speech, one of the major concerns voiced about the Act when it was passed in 2012. Outgoing President Benigno Aquino, who signed the Act into law, never used it.

But that fear remains speculative until Duterte takes office, even as Robles and other journalists express grave concerns about his potential future actions.

“Maybe his bark is worse than his bite,” Robles concedes, insisting that the media, despite members’ concerns, is ready to take on the challenge of reporting on a president who does not want to be interviewed. “We have a task to perform as media members. We are going to perform it in the best way we can; our newspapers are not about to stop covering.”

In addition to fears about Duterte’s potential abuse of laws already on the books and possibly challenging the Philippines’ Constitution, Robles says she also has concerns about the president-elect’s impulse control. Compared to other presidents who remained calm in the face of tough questioning, Duterte has a reputation of fiercely denouncing reporters for ‘impertinent’ questions.

“He gets angry easily and that could prove to be a problem for the presidency, himself and the media,” she comments, adding that she worries that Duterte’s supporters may take his outrage at the media in a dangerous direction.

“Somebody may take it as a suggestion from him to do away with somebody,” she says. “It’s happened before.”