Pointless Resignation Calls: Duterte Emphasizes Accountability Over Removal
Manila, Philippines — Vice President Sara Duterte has made clear that she is not advocating for President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to resign, describing such calls as pointless. In a press briefing held in Zamboanga City, Duterte framed the conversation around accountability, trust, and the duties of the nation’s top leaders rather than political maneuvering or ultimatums.
A Demand for Accountability, Not Resignation
Duterte stated explicitly that she never advocated for Marcos to resign. Instead, she publicly challenged the president to take a drug test, presenting it as an open, ongoing test of leadership and public trust. She described the call for a drug test as a “hanging open challenge” that Marcos has yet to accept, arguing that such a challenge is integral to restoring public confidence when a leader has to confront serious questions about capacity and integrity.
“That is a hanging open challenge that until now he has not done, that is a betrayal of public trust because when you are a president or a vice president, you consecrate yourself to the service of the nation,” Duterte explained. The remarks reflect a broader theme in her public statements: the accountability of those in power, rather than the destabilization that can come from calls for resignation.
Budget Controversy: A Constitutional Concern
The vice president also addressed the signing of the 2025 national budget, which she described as “doubtful” and a “culpable violation of the constitution.” Duterte did not imply illegal intent by specific actors but suggested that the process raised serious questions about constitutional compliance and the proper separation of powers. She asserted that the president must answer for these concerns while the public and lawmakers seek clarity on the implications for governance and fiscal responsibility.
“That is what I want him to answer,” Duterte said, stressing the difference between holding a leader to account and maneuvering to remove him from office. She warned against tactics aimed at distracting the public from discussions about the president’s ability to lead when legal and procedural questions deserve thorough scrutiny.
Reaction to Barzaga’s Calls and Alleged Influence
Duterte also addressed questions about Cavite 4th District Rep. Francisco Barzaga, a prominent voice calling for Marcos’s resignation. She rejected suggestions that Barzaga’s stance was guided by her—or any other single influence. Duterte praised Barzaga’s independent judgment and principles, noting that his public statements appeared rooted in his own convictions rather than external pressure. She framed the congressman’s position as a sign of a healthy democracy where lawmakers can exercise autonomy in evaluating leadership performance.
What This Means for Public Discourse
Analysts suggest that Duterte’s remarks signal a shift toward more disciplined rhetoric around leadership accountability with emphasis on transparent processes and constitutional compliance. By calling for a drug test and pressing for answers on the budget, she channels public interest into concrete, testable standards—rather than embarking on an indefinite debate over resignation.
For voters and political observers, the exchange underscores a central tension in Philippine politics: how to demand accountability for the highest offices without destabilizing the government or triggering unwelcome political vacuums. Duterte’s stance implies that accountability mechanisms—whether through investigations, checks and balances, or public discourse—must take precedence over sensational ultimatums.
Looking Ahead: The Path to Clarity and Credibility
As concerns over leadership, governance, and constitutional compliance persist, Duterte’s comments place emphasis on action and verifiable accountability. The key questions remain: Will Marcos address the drug-test challenge? How will lawmakers and the public respond to the budget concerns? And what does sustained accountability look like for the Philippines’ executive branch?
In the days ahead, observers will be watching not just for statements of support or opposition but for measurable steps that demonstrate governance that can withstand scrutiny and uphold public trust.
