Welcome to the 'bloodbath:' Ridon urges VP Duterte to face trial herself

MANILA, Philippines — House of Representatives prosecutor and Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon has urged Vice President Sara Duterte to personally face her impeachment trial, saying that she is very much welcome to attend the bloodbath.

In a statement on Tuesday, Ridon told Duterte that it is not possible to participate in a bloodbath but at the same time field proxies for her.

READ: VP Duterte on impeach trial: ‘I want a bloodbath’

Article continues after this advertisement

Ridon’s remarks came after Duterte, during a short press briefing at the Senate earlier, made references again to her “bloodbath” statement, saying that while she expects to be “bloodied,” she will be unbowed.”

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

“Welcome to the bloodbath, Madam Vice President. But you cannot have a bloodbath from the sidelines, you cannot have a bloodbath through proxies,” Ridon said.  “Hindi ho pwedeng mga abogado lang ‘yon pong humaharap sa paglilitis (Not only lawyers should face the trial).”

“Dumalo po tayo sa paglilitis, harapin natin ang katotohanan (Join the trial, that is where you should face the truth.),” he added.

In an ambush interview later on, Ridon said that Duterte should not act as a cheerleader, because she is the accused in these proceedings.

“That speaks to the level that she has for the trial proceedings that we have today […] she still has not decided to face the trial about her,” Ridon said, speaking in a mix of Filipino and English.

Article continues after this advertisement

“Again, she said, that she’s here to support the defense panel.  But she is not a cheerleader for this impeachment proceedings, she is the one being tried, she has to be here for herself, not to support anyone else,” he added.

Duterte’s original “bloodbath” statement came after the first attempt to remove her from office, when the House last February 5, 2025 voted to impeach her.

Article continues after this advertisement

After a thanksgiving mass in Davao City last May 2025, Duterte she is eager for a “bloodbath” once the impeachment trial for the first set of complaints starts at the Senate.  However, trial did not happen back then as the Supreme Court declared the first impeachment attempt as unconstitutional, based on a petition filed by Duterte herself.

Several lawmakers and lawyers supportive of Duterte’s impeachment poked fun at the Vice President’s alleged contradicting statements, as she wanted a bloodbath but supposedly moved to avoid it.

Last March, House prosecutor and Mamamayang Liberal party-list Rep. Leila de Lima asked Duterte twice as to where her aspiration for a “bloodbath” is as her statements back then allegedly show a bid to evade accountability.

De Lima said that instead of answering the questions and issues hurled against her, Duterte is resorting to diverting discussions by questioning moves to protect documents and witnesses that may be vital to the impeachment proceedings.

READ: Where’s ‘bloodbath’ now? De Lima says Duterte scared of impeachment

After weeks of speculation, the Senate Impeachment Court convened on Monday to start the trial of Duterte, who was impeached by the House last May 11.  A total of 257 House lawmakers voted in favor of adopting House Resolution (HR) No. 989 which contains the Articles of Impeachment while only 25 members voted against, and nine abstained.

READ: Impeached anew: House OKs articles vs Sara Duterte again with 257 votes

The two complaints submitted to the House were consolidated into four grounds in the Articles of Impeachment:

culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust through the systematic liquidation misuse, misappropriation, and irregular of confidential funds amounting to P500 million under the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and P112.5 million under the Department of Education (DepEd)

culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust when Duterte amassed unexplained wealth manifestly disproportionate to her lawful income and earnings during her incumbency as a public official

bribery, graft and corruption, culpable violation of the Constitution, and betrayal of public trust when she gave monetary gifts or payments to DepEd officials to induce the violation and circumvention of procurement and other related laws

culpable violation of the Constitution, high crimes, and betrayal of public trust by contracting for the assassination of the President, the First Lady, and the former speaker of the House, by making grave threats, and by actively inciting sedition against the republic

Monday’s trial featured some tense moments between the defense and the prosecution panels.  Before delivering her opening statement, lead public prosecutor and Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro moved that Duterte be arraigned based on several Senate rules on impeachment, including Rule No. 7 which allows an arraignment when a respondent fails to appear or submit an answer.

But Duterte’s lawyer Sheila Sison asked whether Luistro is already asking for an arraignment, before countering this argument by saying that Duterte is present through her counsel, as the court allowed it.

READ: Senate impeachment court denies Luistro’s bid to arraign Duterte

Akbayan party-list Rep. Chel Diokno also squared off against Sison, who asked him during trial if the prosecution is ready to present witnesses.  Diokno then pointed out that Sison has repeatedly violated courtroom decorum which states that litigators, or lawyers from both sides, must address questions to the court and not their counterparts.

Sison, however, maintained that the question was made to the court, and not to Diokno.  Presiding officer and Senator-judge Francis Escudero then instructed both panels to move forward.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

During a press briefing after the first day of the trial, Diokno said he is perplexed why Sison asked him if they are ready to present witnesses when the subpoena has not been issued by the Senate Impeachment Court. /jpv