Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte. (Wikimedia)
On September 4, the Quezon City (QC) Regional Trial Court Branch 98 issued an arrest warrant against the Philippine Vice President (VP) Sara Duterte after finding probable cause to proceed with three counts of grave threats arising from remarks she made against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos and House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
The QC Court denied Philippine VP Sara Duterte’s motion to defer or recall the warrant and to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds and set bail at 120,000 Philippine peso for each count.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) said the ruling allows the criminal case to proceed to trial. DOJ spokesperson Polo Martinez said warrants are transmitted directly by the court to the relevant law-enforcement agencies for implementation.
The charges stem from an online press conference in November 2024, during which Philippine VP Duterte said she had contracted someone to kill Philippine President Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and House Speaker Romualdez if she were killed. The DOJ subsequently filed three grave threats charges over the remarks.
Philippine VP Duterte’s camp had sought to dismiss the case, citing lack of jurisdiction. The court’s latest ruling rejected that request and found probable cause for all three charges.
The Malacañang Palace Press Officer Claire Castro said the Palace respects decisions and orders issued by the courts. “The Palace respects any decision of or directive from the court,” she said.
The DOJ also maintained that presidential immunity applies to the president and does not extend to the VP. Philippine VP Duterte is separately facing impeachment proceedings before the Senate.
The ruling places Duterte’s criminal case alongside a separate impeachment process, creating parallel judicial and constitutional proceedings involving a sitting vice president. The immediate significance lies in the court allowing the criminal case to proceed, while the administration has publicly framed its response around respect for judicial authority.
About The Author
