Larry Gadon to Supreme Court: If I’m Out, Sara’s Gotta Go Too!

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — November 28, 2024

IN today’s episode of ‘Pot Calls Kettle Black,’ Larry Gadon, the patron saint of profanity, has petitioned the Supreme Court to disbar Vice President Sara Duterte. His argument? Her recent tirade offends the very decorum he’s so famous for ignoring.

The Gadon Doctrine: Equal Disbarment for All

Gadon, freshly armed with indignation and presumably a thesaurus, insists that what’s sauce for the disbarred goose is sauce for the goose-punching Vice President. He cites Duterte’s latest online tirade, a spectacle that included assassination musings, as evidence of “illegal, immoral, and condemnable” behavior unbecoming of a lawyer. “Millions of Filipinos saw this,” Gadon declared, implying that disbarment, like a viral TikTok dance, should hinge on public viewership metrics.

Invoking motu propio proceedings, Gadon suggests the Supreme Court should leap into action, just as they did when his penchant for profanity caught up with him. After all, if hurling epithets at a journalist can end a legal career, shouldn’t threatening hypothetical murder and backtracking with linguistic gymnastics also earn a one-way ticket out of the profession?

Legal Precedents, Gadon-Style

Gadon’s legal arsenal includes the hallowed doctrine of double standards, a cousin of whataboutism. “If I was disbarred for a tirade, why not Sara?” he posits, appealing to the ancient maxim, Lex Talionis Instagramus: “An Instagram rant for an Instagram rant.” He points to Philippine ethical standards, which dictate that lawyers must “promote respect for the law,” presumably with less punching and fewer assassination jokes.

But Gadon’s pièce de résistance is Republic v. Duterte-Carpio, a landmark case that doesn’t exist but feels inevitable. In his alternate legal universe, punching sheriffs while in office is Exhibit A, while his disbarment over verbal vitriol is evidence of systemic bias. “If my colorful language earned me judicial exile, Sara’s creative death threats deserve a similar encore.”

The Duterte Defense: Misinterpreted and Misunderstood

Vice President Duterte’s rebuttal is as straightforward as a Davao durian: pungent, polarizing, and not for the faint-hearted. Her “arranged assassinations” were, she insists, taken out of context, a defense as timeless as it is dubious. Duterte’s team argues that her words were an exercise in reductio ad absurdum—a Latin phrase she might claim means “just kidding.”

Legal scholars, meanwhile, point out that the Anti-Terrorism Act may take Duterte’s comments less as rhetorical flair and more as a direct challenge to its provisions. Her defenders, though, may counter that the law’s true purpose is to police political enemies, not vice presidents with a penchant for melodrama.

Who Has the Upper Hand?

In this clash of titanic egos, the ultimate victor is uncertainty. Gadon wields righteous outrage, while Duterte counters with the audacity of incumbency. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, must navigate a minefield where every step alienates someone. The biggest losers, as always, are the Filipinos, who must once again reconcile their yearning for justice with the circus of personalities providing it.

The Supreme Court’s Dilemma: To Disbar or Not to Disbar?

The High Court now faces an unenviable choice: risk being accused of bias by disbarring only Gadon, or unleash political Armageddon by disciplining Duterte. Should they proceed against the Vice President, they could cite precedents like In Re Gadon (2022), which warned against “conduct that tramples the dignity of the legal profession.” Conversely, not acting could embolden future leaders to treat ethics like a buffet—optional and calorie-free.

Satiric Recommendations

For Gadon: Take up podcasting. Your brand of righteous indignation could make you the Joe Rogan of Philippine jurisprudence. Plus, podcast hosts can yell without judicial consequences.
For Duterte: Launch a masterclass on “Strategic Misinterpretation.” Topics could include, “How to Backtrack Without Apologizing” and “Punching Sheriffs: A Beginner’s Guide.”
For the Supreme Court: Consider issuing a blanket disbarment for all political figures. It saves time and sets a tone of true equality: nobody practices law because everyone is disqualified.
For Filipinos: Embrace the chaos. If democracy is theater, you’re watching an absurdist masterpiece. Tickets are free, but sanity is not guaranteed.

And so, the Philippines, ever the overachiever in political theatrics, barrels forward into its next scandal, plot twist, or ill-advised monologue. Abangan ang susunod na masalimuot na kabanata—because reality here always outdoes fiction.