Davao City 1st District Representative Paolo “Pulong” Duterte issued a blistering rebuke of former Senate President Vicente Tito Sotto III on his Facebook account on Saturday, February 14, accusing the veteran lawmaker of undermining judicial independence through "selective" standards. 

Duterte slammed Sotto’s recent criticisms of the Supreme Court, particularly the “impeach the justices” rhetoric, labeling the shift from aggressive threats to mere “disagreement” as a convenient political pivot. 

“Separation of powers is not optional, dili ni buffet nga pili-on lang nimo kung unsay lami.” Congressman Duterte said. 

“Separation of powers is not optional; this isn't a buffet where you only pick what tastes good.” Congressman Duterte said

Duterte remarked, emphasizing that the judiciary is not a Senate committee where rulings can be grilled or dismissed simply because they are unpopular with legislators.

“The judiciary is not your committee hearing nga pwede nimo i-grill kung di ka ganahan sa ruling.” The lawmaker added

“The judiciary is not your committee hearing where you can just grill if you don’t like the ruling.” The lawmaker added

The lawmaker further challenged Sotto’s constitutional mastery, arguing that dismissing legal challenges as “nuisance suits” displays irritation rather than legal insight. 

“Calling it a “nuisance suit” doesn’t make you sound constitutional. It makes you sound irritated and ignorant.” The representative said.

Duterte pointed out that respecting the Constitution requires honoring the Supreme Court’s role as its final interpreter, regardless of political standing. 

“The texts and provisions mentioned therein, it  also stretches to the interpretations made by the Supreme Court being the office empowered to interpret it.” Congressman Pulong argued. 

He warned that "free speech" does not grant immunity from the consequences of flexing political pressure against the Court, concluding that if Sotto wishes to be viewed as a statesman, he must act like one rather than treating the high court as an extension of the Senate floor.

“The Senate floor. And “free speech” doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.“

‍