Vice President Sara Duterte’s latest assessment of the Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) rally raises an uncomfortable constitutional and political question—not only for President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., but for the Vice President herself.

Duterte reportedly argued that the massive gathering reflected widespread public dissatisfaction with what she characterized as a weak or failing administration. Whether one agrees with that assessment or not, her remarks underscore a growing perception that the Marcos administration is facing declining public confidence amid ongoing political polarization.

Yet there is a paradox that cannot be ignored.

Sara Duterte remains the elected Vice President of the Republic of the Philippines.

She is not an opposition leader. She is not a private citizen. She occupies one of the highest constitutional offices in the land and forms part of the very government she now criticizes.

That reality raises an obvious question.

If the administration has indeed become as ineffective as she suggests, what responsibility does the Vice President herself bear for restoring public confidence?

Under the Constitution, the Vice President is elected separately from the President and may disagree with the administration’s policies. Political disagreement, by itself, is not unusual in presidential systems.

However, there is a difference between expressing policy disagreements and repeatedly portraying one’s own government as fundamentally weak while continuing to occupy one of its highest offices.

Every criticism directed at “the government” inevitably reaches the Office of the Vice President as well.

Government is not an abstract institution. It consists of public officials entrusted with constitutional responsibilities—including the Vice President.

That is why Duterte’s position presents an increasingly difficult political balancing act.

If she believes the administration has lost the moral authority to govern, should she continue serving within it?

History offers numerous examples of senior officials resigning when they concluded that remaining in office would compromise either their principles or their credibility. Resignation has often served as a political statement that allows an official to criticize the government without simultaneously sharing responsibility for it.

Remaining in office while positioning oneself as one of the administration’s most persistent critics inevitably invites accusations of political contradiction.

Meanwhile, Malacañang has publicly maintained a markedly different posture.

Palace officials have reiterated that the government respects the constitutional right of Filipinos to peacefully assemble. At the same time, they have emphasized that authorities stand ready to enforce the Constitution and existing laws should public order or national security be threatened.

These two positions are not mutually exclusive.

The Constitution protects peaceful assembly, but it also empowers the State to maintain public order through lawful policing. How those powers are exercised—and whether they remain proportionate and constitutional—will be judged by events on the ground.

At present, there is no public evidence that martial law is being prepared or is imminent. However, Sara Duterte might actually get what she wished for (a stronger President Marcos Junior) if things get out of hand.

Under the 1987 Constitution, martial law may be proclaimed only under specific constitutional conditions, such as invasion or rebellion, and even then it remains subject to congressional oversight and Supreme Court review. Any suggestion that such a proclamation is forthcoming would therefore be speculative absent official announcements or verified intelligence.

It can be said that the Marcos administration has consistently signaled its intent to preserve constitutional order while allowing lawful dissent.

The President’s decision to proceed with his scheduled official visit to Canada despite the ongoing political tensions may also carry political significance. It projects an image of an administration that does not view current demonstrations, by themselves, as an immediate existential threat to constitutional government. Whether that calculation proves correct will depend on how events unfold.

Ultimately, the INC rally has become more than a religious or political gathering. It has evolved into a test of Philippine democratic institutions.

Can citizens assemble peacefully while the government preserves public order?

Can political leaders criticize an administration of which they remain a part without eroding public confidence in the institutions they themselves are sworn to uphold?

And perhaps the most difficult question of all:

If Vice President Sara Duterte believes the present administration no longer deserves the public’s confidence, should she continue serving within it—or should she relinquish the office that makes her one of its principal constitutional stewards?

That is not merely a political question.

It is a question of constitutional responsibility and political accountability—one that the Vice President herself will ultimately have to answer before the Filipino people.