In a democracy, dissent is vital. But when elected officials and presidential advisers criticize the Supreme Court for upholding constitutional safeguards, we must ask: is this dissent rooted in principle—or in political theater?
The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to void the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte was not a declaration of innocence. It was a firm assertion of constitutional process, citing the one-year bar rule and due process violations. It reminded all branches of government that accountability must be pursued within the bounds of law—not through shortcuts or partisan fervor.
Yet instead of respecting the Court’s role as the final arbiter of constitutional questions, some lawmakers and officials have chosen to vilify it.
Rep. Perci Cendaña, who endorsed one of the four impeachment complaints, called the Court the “Supreme Coddler of Sara Duterte”. He warned that the ruling sets a dangerous precedent, allowing corrupt politicians to hide behind judicial rulings to escape accountability. His frustration is understandable—but his rhetoric, as a sitting legislator, carries institutional weight. It risks undermining public trust in the judiciary and blurs the line between critique and contempt.
Presidential Adviser Larry Gadon went further, branding the Supreme Court “tuta ng mga Duterte” (lapdog of the Dutertes). This wasn’t a legal argument—it was a personal attack. Gadon, disbarred in 2023 for scandalous conduct, now holds a Cabinet-level post. His remarks not only insult the Court but also reflect a troubling disregard for the decorum expected of public officials.
Both Cendaña and Gadon now face petitions for indirect contempt. Whether these petitions prosper or not, they highlight a deeper issue: the weaponization of outrage. When accountability is demanded of the Vice President, it must also be demanded of those who distort legal discourse for political gain.
The Supreme Court’s ruling did not absolve Vice President Duterte. It simply reminded Congress that the rule of law must prevail over the rule of numbers. A new complaint may be filed after February 2026. Until then, the path to justice must be paved with evidence, procedure, and respect for institutions.
If lawmakers and advisers truly believe in accountability, let them act with integrity—not indignation. Let them file a new complaint when the time is right. Let them present facts, not insults. Let them uphold the Constitution they swore to defend.
Because in the end, accountability is not a slogan—it is a standard. And it must apply to all.
