Of Legal Boundaries and Political Decorum –
A Test for Civil Servantship
A Test for Civil Servantship
The controversy surrounding Vice President Sara Duterte’s chief of staff, Atty. Zuleika Lopez, has grown into a reflection of larger issues plaguing governance in the Philippines: the misuse of power, disregard for constitutional boundaries, and systemic failure to uphold justice. What began as a contempt citation has now revealed cracks in the country’s political institutions, exposing an unsettling willingness to justify questionable actions under the pretense of law, order, and internal security.
Lopez’s transfer, from the House of Representatives detention facility to Veterans Memorial Medical Center and St. Luke’s Medical Center, was met with criticism after plans to move her to the Women’s Correctional Institution in Mandaluyong City emerged. Senators Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa and Christopher “Bong” Go defended Lopez, framing the move as unjust, given that contempt is not a criminal conviction. While their concern seems reasonable on the surface, it is worth questioning their selective outrage and historical actions.
Misplaced Outrage and Unanswered Questions
Senator Dela Rosa, for instance, described the transfer to a correctional facility as “very unjustified” and argued that treating Lopez as though she were convicted was unwarranted. Yet, his concern feels hollow when placed alongside his controversial legacy as a key figure in the Duterte administration’s war on drugs. Thousands of Filipinos were accused—often with little evidence—of drug-related crimes, and many suffered extrajudicial killings or wrongful arrests. Did Dela Rosa ever apologize to those wrongfully accused, detained, or worse, summarily executed? His cries of “innocence” for Lopez ring hollow to those who endured his policies without a chance to defend their own innocence.
Similarly, Senator Go’s call for “reconciliation” may strike some as pragmatic, “The Filipino people do not need political controversies; they need better services and compassion,” he said. His sentiment is a reminder that political accountability should always be tempered with fairness and empathy. But, if one must ask: reconciliation at what cost? While he urges restraint and dialogue, victims of the Duterte administration’s war on drugs and other oppressive measures demand justice. Calls for unity and reconciliation often act as a smokescreen, dismissing legitimate grievances and accountability under the guise of moving forward. Victims of state violence may rightfully see Go’s stance as a dismissal of their pain, a form of whataboutism, or even a perpetuation of victim-blaming.
The Vice President’s Role in the Crisis
Vice President Duterte’s role in this controversy raises further questions. Her alleged attempt to act as Lopez’s legal counsel—a clear violation of Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution—demonstrates a troubling disregard for the rule of law. Rep. Joel Chua rightfully pointed out that public officials like the President and Vice President are explicitly prohibited from practicing their professions during their tenure. If Duterte knowingly violated this provision, it reflects not only poor judgment but a willingness to bend the law for personal loyalties.
Compounding the issue is Duterte’s inflammatory remark about hiring an assassin to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and House Speaker Martin Romualdez if she herself were assassinated. Whether meant as hyperbole or not, such statements are reckless and undermine the stability of her office. Rep. Chua suggested that this could be grounds for impeachment—and rightly so. Duterte’s remark cannot be brushed off as mere rhetoric; it signals a dangerous mindset unbecoming of someone in the second-highest office in the land.
Misuse of Funds and Failed Defenses
Beyond the legal and rhetorical controversies, Duterte’s office faces deeper accountability issues, including allegations of misusing confidential funds. These funds, which are meant to address urgent national concerns, have instead been shrouded in secrecy and suspicion. Despite repeated defenses from her subordinates, these actions have left the Office of the Vice President vulnerable to criticism, portraying it as an institution that prioritizes its own agenda over transparency and public trust.
Rather than taking responsibility, Duterte’s subordinates have often been left to fend off accusations without a clear strategy, reflecting poorly on her leadership. The Vice President’s earlier actions—whether deflecting accountability or doubling down on questionable decisions—have pushed her office into deeper political controversy.
The Real Test of Leadership
This controversy is more than just a series of political missteps; it is a test of how the country’s leaders respect constitutional limits and address the demands for justice. Calls for reconciliation and pragmatism, while superficially appealing, cannot erase the cries for accountability from the victims of past abuses. Nor can they excuse the clear disregard for proper governance and constitutional principles that this situation has exposed.
Duterte’s office must face scrutiny for its actions, including the alleged misuse of funds and her inflammatory remarks. These are not isolated missteps but part of a broader pattern of governance that prioritizes political loyalty and power over the rule of law and public accountability.
As the Filipino people watch this drama unfold, one thing becomes clear: leadership is not about loyalty to allies or the ability to justify controversial actions. It is about upholding the law, fostering trust, and addressing the needs of the people with integrity. If the Vice President and her allies cannot meet these standards, they must be held accountable—not just for their rhetoric but for the real harm their actions have caused.