She said she now trusted only the Filipino people, not the courts or the police.
She said she chose to post bail rather than be placed in police custody because she believed detention would leave her isolated and more vulnerable amid what she described as continuing government harassment against her.
The second-highest official in government said her lawyers advised her to post bail rather than remain in police custody.
They said she would have greater protection outside detention because civilians could see and monitor her situation.
“They explained that I could be better protected by civilians who can see and notice my condition, compared with remaining in detention where I would be isolated and more vulnerable,” Duterte said in a statement.
Duterte also said she did not feel her mother and children would be safe if she stayed with them, expressing concern over their “safety and welfare.”
The Vice President claimed the government had subjected her to “pressure and harassment” since 2023, and linked her personal security concerns to her broader grievances over public services and corruption.
“I had already left my children to go to court, but the police still went there,” she said.
In a conversation with her counsel, Duterte asked who would be held responsible if she died while in custody. “Who will be held accountable if I die tonight?”
When told the police and the judge could be held accountable, Duterte replied that they would wash their hands of responsibility.
“I do not feel safe. At all. Whatever I do,” she said.
Legal action possible
Her lawyer, Paul Lawrence Lim, meanwhile, said he would review Duterte’s statements concerning the alleged harassment of her children and mother by police before deciding whether to take legal action.
The lawyer said he learned of the alleged incident only on Saturday morning, after the arrest warrant was issued.
Lim said Duterte voluntarily appeared before the court and underwent the procedures required for bail, including fingerprinting and submitting photographs and other documents.
He said Duterte provided the photographs and they were not police mugshots.
“Again, the Vice President voluntarily appeared before the court that issued the warrant. So there was no need for her to be arrested,” he said.
The criminal case stemmed from Duterte’s remarks during a November 2024 online news conference, when she said she had instructed someone to assassinate Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and then House Speaker Martin Romualdez if she herself were killed.
“Do not worry about my security because I already spoke to someone. I said, ‘If I am killed, kill BBM, Liza Araneta, and Martin Romualdez.’ No joke, no joke,” Duterte had said.
Political harassment
Meanwhile, Davao City 2nd District Rep. Omar Duterte, the Vice President’s nephew, described the arrest warrant as a “clear act of political harassment” and accused the government of using its power to silence its political opponents.
“As a public servant and as someone who cares deeply about our nation, my heart breaks to see what is happening to our country today,” Duterte said in a statement.
He compared his aunt’s case with the legal troubles faced by his grandfather, former President Rodrigo Duterte.
“This is no longer just about Vice President Sara Duterte. This is about our dignity as a nation and the safety of every single family in our country,” the younger Duterte added.
The Partido Demokratiko Pilipino (PDP), led by the Vice President’s brother, Davao City Mayor Sebastian Duterte, denounced her arrest, saying it was the “latest assault on the legitimate political opposition” by the Marcos administration.
Not a finding of guilt
An arrest warrant issued against Vice President Duterte in a separate grave threats case does not mean she has been found guilty, her impeachment defense lawyer Justin Gular said Saturday.
Gular, deputy spokesperson of Duterte’s defense team, distinguished the issuance of a warrant from a finding of guilt as the Vice President faces the criminal case alongside her ongoing impeachment trial before the Senate.
While declining to predict the criminal case’s effect on the impeachment trial, Gular said the public could draw its own conclusions.