‘Bloodbath’ remark carries no violent meaning – Sara Duterte defense

MANILA, Philippines — Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense team maintained on Monday that her “bloodbath” comments were not an insinuation of violence, but rather a reference to her own blood being spilled during the proceedings.

Defense spokesperson Michael Poa issued the clarification days after the Vice President renewed her vivid imagery of the impeachment trial. Duterte had once again labeled the proceedings a “bloodbath” and a “bludgeoning,” while asserting that she would emerge “bloodied but unbowed.”

“What she meant by that was that his own blood would be spilled because he was the subject of these impeachment proceedings,” said Poa in a press conference before the fourth day of the impeachment trial.

READ: WATCH: Defense team briefs media on VP Sara impeachment trial

“And that was clarified further when last week she said that she will be bludgeoned, isn’t she, so what she meant with bloodbath was actually herself,” he added.

According to Poa, Duterte’s pronouncements should not be taken as violent as the vice president did not intend to insinuate that.

“The Vice President made no such insinuation,” he said.

To recall, it was in May 2025 when she first expressed that she wanted the impeachment trial to proceed because she wanted a “bloodbath.”

READ: Prosecution: Sara Duterte’s hitman claim shows aim to kill president

This particular pronouncement of hers, however, had been repeatedly challenged and criticized by critics and political rivals, especially after she famously snubbed most of the House impeachment proceedings against her both in 2025 and 2026.

Duterte has yet to also actually appear before the ongoing impeachment trial. /mr

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

Read Next

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.