The Political Cauldron Boils Over: A Feud Goes Public and the Rule of Law Is Tested

A political earthquake is shaking the foundations of the Philippine government, exposing a deep, toxic rift between former allies and setting the stage for an unprecedented confrontation. What began as a simmering cold war between the Marcos administration and the Dutertes has escalated into a public, high-stakes battle, with top officials now forced to defend the very essence of law and order against rhetoric that some claim verges on sedition.

The tipping point was revealed during a seemingly routine Malacañang press briefing, which rapidly transformed into a political battleground. During the briefing, the Palace responded to a series of provocative political actions and statements—from a Vice President’s open defiance of key appointments to a prominent congressman’s alleged attempts to incite political turmoil.

The atmosphere is thick with charges of “politicking” and veiled threats, but the core issue is now dangerously simple: Who truly controls the power narrative in Manila, and where does the line lie between aggressive political criticism and criminal incitement?

The Congressman and the Charge of Revolt

At the heart of the escalating tension is Representative Kiko Barzaga, a figure who, according to media queries during the briefing, stands accused of making highly inflammatory statements that “seem to incite a revolt” or “mutiny” (pag-aaklas). The question posed to the Palace was stark: Will Barzaga be held accountable, and could this lead to an arrest?

The response from the administration was measured but undeniably firm, signaling a significant shift in the Palace’s tolerance level. While a government spokesman stated that the President is currently “busy working” and ignoring “politicking,” the legal caveat was clear: if the congressman’s actions are determined to be “violating the law,” then he should “probably be charged.” This subtle, judicial acknowledgment of the potential charges against Barzaga serves as a powerful message. It is a direct warning shot, underscoring that while dissent is protected, any rhetoric that crosses into the territory of sedition or inciting violence will be met with the full force of the state’s legal apparatus.

This potential legal action against a sitting high-profile congressman is not merely political maneuvering; it signifies a new phase of the conflict, one where the administration is willing to risk a political crisis to assert the dominance of the rule of law. It suggests that the President’s camp has decided to stop looking the other way and is prepared to use legal means to silence or neutralize those they deem to be actively undermining stability. The congressman now finds himself walking a razor’s edge, where his political statements could easily transform into a criminal indictment.

A Vice President’s Public Humiliation

The briefing was equally devastating for Vice President Sara Duterte, whose authority and political judgment were openly questioned and ultimately dismissed by the Presidential Palace. Two specific incidents were addressed, both of which exposed the diminishing influence of the Vice President within the current power structure.

First, the Palace was asked to comment on the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) decision to cite a statement attributed to VP Duterte—a statement allegedly related to a “plan to break” her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte (FVRD), from detention. While the administration’s spokesperson attempted to distance the current government from the ICC case, the mere fact that the Vice President’s rhetoric was acknowledged in the context of an international legal battle highlighted a dangerous lack of coordination and political discipline at the highest levels.

However, the most humiliating moment came when the Vice President’s political aspirations were openly ridiculed. VP Duterte had publicly stated that if she were the President, she would not have appointed the current Ombudsman, Samuel Martires Remulla, suggesting a profound disagreement with the Marcos administration’s choice of a key anti-corruption figure. The Palace’s response was swift, brutal, and utterly dismissive: “It’s a dream that won’t happen right now.”

This statement is far more than a simple contradiction. It is a public rebuke, an explicit declaration that the Vice President’s political vision and preferences are entirely irrelevant to the current direction of the government. It asserts the President’s absolute prerogative in appointing officials and frames the Vice President’s public disagreements as nothing more than unfulfilled, hypothetical ambitions. For a high-ranking official with presidential aspirations, this public minimization of her authority is a major blow, signaling that her political capital is rapidly depreciating within the Marcos circle.

Furthermore, the Palace spokesman seized the opportunity to champion the President’s own commitment to good governance, emphasizing that the current leader “thinks well, knows better” and would never tolerate or defend officials involved in stealing public funds—a statement that serves as a direct, albeit veiled, contrast to the perceived actions or inaction of the previous administration.

Defending the “Civilized Society” Against “Barbaric” Threats

The political tensions are further exacerbated by the aggressive rhetoric emanating from the Duterte camp. The Palace was pressed to comment on a statement from Congressman Pulong Duterte (the former President’s son), who reportedly threatened the “kidnappers of my father,” vowing to make them “pay for this crime.”

In a surprisingly forceful rebuttal, the Palace spokesman unequivocally rejected this language, positioning the Marcos administration as the steadfast defender of democratic norms. The official statement was a powerful ideological counter-punch: “We should not live in threats. We are in a civilized society, and we are not in a barbaric world.”

This is a crucial moment in the ongoing feud. By labeling the threats as “barbaric,” the administration is subtly but effectively challenging the moral and ideological foundations of its rivals. It contrasts the Marcos camp, who adheres to the “rule of law,” with the Dutertes, whose rhetoric is framed as dangerous, uncivilized, and fundamentally destabilizing. This response serves a dual purpose: it dismisses the threat and, at the same time, elevates the image of the current President as the necessary bulwark against political chaos.

Governance Amidst the Infighting

While the political infighting commands headlines, the press briefing also revealed the administration’s attempts to maintain an image of busy governance, addressing genuine concerns such as disaster relief and corruption investigations.

The Palace confirmed that investigations are underway for “Ghost Projects” and alleged “Ghost farm-to-market roads” in Davao Occidental, signaling a commitment to fighting corruption regardless of political affiliation. Furthermore, the administration defended the National Food Authority’s (NFA) mandate to sell, rather than give away, PhP20/kilo rice to disaster victims—a defense framed around legal constraints and the separation of agency mandates, rather than a lack of compassion.

Crucially, the Palace was asked about the President’s safety during a planned visit to Davao, given the reported threats from the Dutertes and their supporters. The spokesman dismissed this concern with a strong affirmation of confidence: “Davaoeños are good countrymen. They have hearts, and they know the people who truly help them… The President is not afraid to go to any region in our country.” This statement, while expressing confidence in the local populace, simultaneously minimizes the perceived danger from the political rivals, painting the President as a courageous, dedicated leader undeterred by intimidation.

The press briefing ultimately served as a dramatic moment of reckoning. It confirmed the existence of a profound political crisis and demonstrated the Marcos administration’s strategy for survival: asserting the rule of law through potential arrests, publicly dismissing the influence of political rivals, and framing their actions as a necessary defense of a “civilized society” against “barbaric” intimidation. The conflict is far from over, but the rules of engagement have just been redefined.