DAVAO City First District Representative Paolo “Pulong” Duterte issued a sharp rebuke of Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III this week, following an indirect contempt petition filed against Sotto before the Supreme Court (SC) by several lawyers.
In a statement, Duterte criticized Sotto for what he described as a selective approach to constitutional limits and the principle of separation of powers.
"So kung ordinaryong blogger, dali ra kaayo i-contempt. Pero kung Senate President magpa-'impeach the justices' vibe, biglang 'I simply expressed disagreement'? How convenient (If an ordinary blogger does something similar, contempt is immediate. But if the Senate President gives off an ‘impeach the justices’ vibe, suddenly it’s ‘I simply expressed disagreement’? How convenient,” he said. “Separation of powers is not optional, dili ni buffet nga pili-on lang nimo kung unsay lami. The judiciary is not your committee hearing nga pwede nimo i-grill kung di ka ganahan sa ruling (Separation of powers is not optional; you don’t pick and choose what’s convenient. The judiciary is not your committee hearing that you can grill if you dislike the ruling)."
Duterte also challenged Sotto’s characterization of the petition as a “nuisance suit,” saying it exposed irritation rather than constitutional understanding. He emphasized that the Constitution includes not only the written law but also Supreme Court interpretations, which clarify its meaning.
“Calling it a 'nuisance suit' doesn’t make you sound constitutional. It makes you sound irritated and ignorant,” he said.
He accused Sotto of inconsistent respect for the judiciary, noting that the Senate President lectures on decorum while exerting political pressure on the Court. Duterte acknowledged that disagreement is natural but warned that public officials cannot claim offense when called out for perceived overreach. He stressed that freedom of speech does not exempt officials from accountability and urged Sotto to act like a true statesman.
The statement came after Sotto responded to the petition, calling it “merely a publicity stunt” and claiming his comments on the Supreme Court’s decision affirming the dismissal of impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte were protected personal opinions.
The petitioners, led by lawyers Ferdinand Topacio, Manuelito Luna, Harold Respicio, Mary Catherine Binag, and Virgilio Garcia, asked the Supreme Court to cite Sotto for indirect contempt. They argued that Sotto’s public statements exceeded permissible commentary, undermined public trust in the judiciary, and tarnished the Court’s credibility.
Topacio said Sotto had reportedly compared justices to first-year law students, questioning their competence. While the lawyers acknowledged Sotto’s right to free speech, they stressed that public officials remain bound by rules on contempt and must not obstruct or degrade the administration of justice.
Sotto, citing Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, maintained he had committed no offense.
“I did not do any of those acts. I simply expressed a disagreement with the court decision. That is protected speech under Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution,” he said, adding he would formally respond once the Supreme Court directs him to do so.
Legal experts explained that indirect contempt applies to statements or actions that interfere with the judiciary’s functions, such as attempts to intimidate justices or obstruct court proceedings. They noted that while free speech is protected, it does not shield public officials from consequences for comments that undermine judicial authority.
The Supreme Court had previously ruled that the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte was barred under the one-year prohibition against multiple impeachment proceedings against the same official within a calendar year. DEF