Remulla said the Philippine National Police knew where Duterte was located on the night after the arrest warrant was issued but decided not to forcibly implement it.
He said the PNP had surveillance of the warrant’s implementation and that police body-camera footage documented the process, including Duterte’s eventual arrival at court to post bail.
Remulla defended the police response, saying Duterte was accorded the respect due to her position as vice president.
His comments came after Duterte expressed concerns about her safety and said she did not trust the court or police.
Duterte posts ₱360,000 bail
Duterte appeared at the Quezon City Hall of Justice on Sept. 5, accompanied by her lawyers and supporters, and posted ₱360,000 bail.
The amount represented ₱120,000 for each of the three grave-threat charges. After the bail requirements were completed, the court lifted the arrest warrant.
Duterte said her lawyers advised her that posting bail and remaining visible to the public was safer than being placed in police custody.
She also told reporters that she had concerns about her safety and claimed she had experienced surveillance and threats dating back to 2023. Those claims have not been independently established.
What is the grave-threat case about?
The criminal case stems from Duterte’s November 2024 remarks in which she said she had arranged for someone to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and then-House Speaker Martin Romualdez if she herself were killed.
The Department of Justice subsequently filed three counts of grave threats against her.
On Sept. 4, Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 98 found probable cause to hold Duterte for trial and issued the arrest warrant after denying her motion seeking to defer or recall it.
It is important to stress that a finding of probable cause and the issuance of an arrest warrant do not constitute a final finding of guilt. Duterte remains entitled to due process and the presumption of innocence.
PNP disputes claims of verified threats
The police have also responded to Duterte’s security concerns.
PNP chief Gen. Jose Melencio Nartatez Jr. said that, as of Saturday, Duterte had not reported to the police any threat to her life or her family’s safety, including the threats she said dated back to 2023.
He added that the PNP had not independently monitored any verified threat against Duterte or her family.
At the same time, Nartatez said the police remain open to receiving documents, reports or statements concerning any alleged threats so they can be evaluated and verified.
Why Remulla’s admission is significant
Remulla’s statement is significant because it confirms that police had information about Duterte’s location while an arrest warrant was already outstanding.
However, the available reports do not establish that authorities were legally required to immediately make a forcible physical arrest at the location where they knew she was.
Instead, Duterte ultimately went voluntarily to court and completed the required booking and bail process. Police said they did not take her into custody before that appearance.
This distinction is important because the phrase “they knew where she was” should not automatically be interpreted as evidence that authorities unlawfully failed to execute a warrant.
The political stakes are much bigger
The arrest-warrant episode comes as Duterte faces a separate impeachment battle in the Senate.
Reuters reported that the legal proceedings add to the political pressure surrounding the vice president, who remains a central figure in the country’s political landscape and has been viewed as a potential contender in the 2028 presidential race.
The case also comes against the backdrop of the political break between the Marcos and Duterte camps.
Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Sara Duterte won the 2022 national elections as political allies, but their relationship deteriorated sharply beginning in 2024. The resulting feud has since expanded into legal, congressional and political battles.
Duterte now turns the spotlight on Remulla
The controversy did not end when Duterte posted bail.
On Sept. 5, Duterte accused the government of harassment and questioned the police’s conduct, while Remulla defended the PNP’s handling of the warrant.
By Sept. 6, Duterte was publicly saying she did not trust Remulla, escalating the political confrontation surrounding the case.
That means the latest dispute is no longer simply about whether an arrest warrant was properly issued.
It has become a larger fight over police surveillance, Duterte’s security concerns, the government’s handling of a sitting vice president and the political tensions surrounding the Marcos-Duterte split.
The key facts at a glance
| Issue | What is confirmed |
|---|---|
| Arrest warrant | QC RTC Branch 98 issued it on Sept. 4 |
| Charges | Three counts of grave threats |
| Bail | ₱120,000 per count, ₱360,000 total |
| Duterte’s status | Posted bail and secured provisional liberty |
| Remulla’s statement | Authorities knew her whereabouts but did not force the warrant |
| Police position | No verified threat against Duterte had been monitored or reported to them |
| Case status | The criminal case proceeds; Duterte has not been convicted |
| Political backdrop | Duterte is also facing an impeachment process |
The question now
The immediate arrest drama may be over, but the political fallout is only beginning.
Duterte is out on bail, the warrant has been lifted, and the grave-threat case can proceed toward trial.
But Remulla’s disclosure that authorities knew her whereabouts before she appeared in court has opened a new question:
Was the decision not to force the arrest simply a measured law-enforcement strategy — or will Duterte’s camp use the revelation to strengthen its allegations of government surveillance and harassment?
That could become the next major flashpoint in the escalating Marcos-Duterte confrontation.
WWC ONE MEDIA M.J.E
Leave a Reply