Vice President Sara Duterte broke her silence after the Supreme Court unanimously voided the House of Representatives’ impeachment proceedings against her, describing the move as “unconstitutional.” She thanked her legal team and the petitioners for standing firm against what she called abuses by the lower chamber.
“I extend my heartfelt gratitude to the members of the defense team for taking on my case, even when no one else was willing to stand by me,” Duterte said in a statement issued by the Office of the Vice President.
Duterte has not confirmed her return to the Philippines following recent trips to The Hague and South Korea. From July 6 to 23, she reportedly visited her father, former president Rodrigo Duterte, who is facing international legal scrutiny, and later joined a “Bring Duterte Home” event with the Filipino community on July 27. She was expected back in Manila on July 28, the same day President Marcos delivered his fourth State of the Nation Address.
As Duterte welcomed the high court’s decision, legal battles brewed on another front.
Three lawyers—Ferdinand Topacio, Mark Kristopher Tolentino, and Rolex Suplico—filed a petition before the Supreme Court on Monday seeking to cite poverty alleviation czar Larry Gadon, Akbayan Rep. Percival Cendaña, and political analyst Richard Heydarian for indirect contempt over their public reactions to the SC ruling.
Topacio highlighted Gadon’s public statements accusing the high court of political bias in favor of the Dutertes. Meanwhile, Heydarian’s Facebook post, which pointed out that 13 of 15 justices were appointed by Duterte, was described as a “deliberate and malicious” attempt to undermine the judiciary’s integrity.
“It deliberately and maliciously framed the Justices as beholden to former President Rodrigo Duterte, thereby attributing impropriety, lack of independence, and judicial bias to the Supreme Court as an institution,” their petition read.
Cendaña’s remark calling the tribunal the “Supreme Coddler” was also cited as damaging. The petition argued that such a label, coming from a sitting lawmaker, carries institutional weight and risks eroding public trust in the judiciary.
