Gadon vs. Topacio: Manila’s Legal Soap Opera Where Everyone Loses

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — August 6, 2025

IN Manila’s sweltering political arena, where egos clash louder than a jeepney’s backfire, the Gadon-Topacio feud is a spectacle of self-inflicted chaos. Picture a disbarred lawyer and a headline-chasing attorney dueling with gavels and microphones while the Supreme Court, gavel poised, debates whether to laugh, cry, or slam the book. This isn’t just a legal spat—it’s a fevered pulse-check on Philippine democracy, where principle and performance art tangle in a sweaty, absurd brawl.

Act I: The Clown Car Crashes the Courtroom

Gadon’s Molotov Mouth: Genius or Lunacy?

Lorenzo “Larry” Gadon, Presidential Adviser on Poverty Alleviation (a title as ironic as a dictator preaching peace), branded the Supreme Court a “tuta ng mga Duterte” (Duterte lapdog) after its July 25, 2025, ruling quashed impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte. Is this a calculated jab to rally Marcos loyalists or the unhinged rant of a man who treats decorum like roadkill? Gadon’s rap sheet—disbarred for misogyny and perjury, fined ₱150,000 in 2024—screams recklessness. Yet, his jab at the Duterte-heavy Court (13 of 15 justices appointed by 2022) hits a nerve. Calling them lapdogs, though, isn’t critique—it’s a Molotov cocktail lobbed at judicial credibility.

Topacio’s Grandstand: Savior or Showboat?

Ferdinand Topacio, lawyer to fallen titans like Rodrigo Duterte and Apollo Quiboloy, filed a contempt petition against Gadon, citing Rule 71, Section 3(d) of the Rules of Court. He claims it’s his sacred duty to defend the judiciary. Noble? Or a slick move to scrub his tarnished brand? Topacio’s client list—Quiboloy, Guo, Teves, all jailed or fugitive—reads like a crime novel’s cast. His petition smells of principle but reeks of opportunism. Taking on Gadon, Manila’s loudest mouth, guarantees headlines. Topacio isn’t just guarding the Court; he’s auditioning for its lead cheerleader.

Barok’s Scalpel of Satire: Crusaders or Court Jesters?

This is not a battle of titans but a burlesque of egos, a Monty Python skit scripted for Manila’s gossip-hungry streets. In my July 30, 2025, commentary , I dubbed this fiasco a “Contempt Circus at the Edge of Judicial Sanity.” Gadon, the self-styled messiah, nails himself to the cross of every sanction, grinning as fines pile up like medals. His “lapdog” jab isn’t legal argument—it’s performance art, a one-man show for Marcos loyalists and X trolls. Topacio, meanwhile, plays the court’s handkerchief, dabbing at judicial tears while eyeing the camera. His contempt petition? Less about saving the Supreme Court than salvaging his own image, scuffed by a roster of clients who’d make a tabloid blush. These aren’t gladiators of justice; they’re jesters in a courtroom farce, juggling principle and publicity while the rule of law takes a pie to the face. Yet, the crowd—Filipinos craving a functioning democracy—watches, wondering if this is entertainment or erosion.

Act II: The Mud-Slinging Melee

Gadon’s Free Speech Firebomb: Protected or Perilous?

Gadon leans on free speech, citing US v. Bustos (G.R. No. L-12592, March 8, 1918) to argue his “lapdog” jab is political hyperbole. No pending case, he claims, means no contempt (Estrada v. Desierto (G.R. Nos. 146710-15, March 2, 2001)). He’s not wrong: Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution protects robust critique, and the Court’s Duterte-heavy roster invites skepticism. But hyperbole from a disbarred public official isn’t cute—it’s a wrecking ball. His words don’t just question; they erode public trust, a line even Bustos doesn’t cover.

Sara’s Free Pass vs. Gadon’s Whipping: Double Standards or Delusion?

Gadon howls hypocrisy, pointing to Sara Duterte’s unpunished outbursts (like her 2011 sheriff-slapping stunt). Why him and not her? It’s a populist battle cry, but it’s a false equivalence. Sara’s a vice president, beyond the Court’s disciplinary reach, unlike Gadon, a former lawyer. The Court’s July 25 ruling on her impeachment was about constitutional mechanics, not a Duterte love letter. Gadon’s argument rallies Marcos fans but collapses under logic.

Leonen’s Vendetta: Legit Grudge or Marcos Myth?

Gadon’s attack on Justice Marvic Leonen—accusing him of stalling Marcos’ electoral protest and avenging ex-Chief Justice Sereno’s 2018 ouster—is personal. Gadon’s 2019 impeachment filing against Leonen fuels the feud. But his claim of an anti-Marcos conspiracy is flimsy. Leonen’s delay (six years, unresolved) raises questions, but Gadon’s narrative is a Marcos loyalist’s fever dream, not evidence. It’s a distraction, not a defense.

Gadon as Arsonist: Maverick or Menace?

Gadon’s disbarment for gross misconduct (In re: Gadon, A.C. No. 13521. June 27, 2023) and perjury fines mark him as a serial offender. This “shock jock” label thrives on chaos, but it incinerates his credibility. Calling the Court a lapdog isn’t bold; it’s a middle finger to an institution he swore to respect. As a public official, he’s bound by RA 6713, and his antics torch public trust. He’s no martyr—he’s a pyromaniac.

Disbarred Adviser: Poverty Czar or Public Hazard?

Can a man banned from lawyering ethically shape poverty policy? Gadon’s appointment is a head-scratcher. His role demands trust, yet he undermines it with every rant. Defenders argue his disbarment is irrelevant—he’s not practicing law. But when a presidential adviser trashes the Supreme Court, it’s a signal: institutions are fair game. The Marcos administration’s silence is a scream.

Martyrdom’s Double Edge: Rallying Cry or Self-Destruction?

Gadon’s “persecuted populist” act galvanizes Marcos and Duterte loyalists, who see him as a truth-teller. Each fine fuels his victimhood narrative. But it’s a tightrope. If the Court goes beyond Barok’s predicted ₱30,000 fine—say, jail time—his martyr shtick could flop. Filipinos love underdogs, not clowns who overstay their welcome.

Topacio’s High-Wire Act: Crusader or Clout-Chaser?

Topacio’s petition paints him as the judiciary’s champion, but his client roster—Quiboloy, Guo, Duterte—dims his halo. X posts (@Abogado_PH) call him a fame-seeker. Yet, as a lawyer, he’s duty-bound to defend the Court. Is he shielding justice or chasing headlines? Likely both, and that’s the problem.

Topacio’s Gamble: Victory or Self-Own?

A win cements Topacio as a principled lawyer. But Gadon’s louder megaphone—blaring on X and beyond—could steal the narrative. Even a legal triumph might leave Topacio “Gadon-adjacent,” his reputation smudged by this circus. His petition risks amplifying Gadon’s chaos, handing the populist a bigger stage.

Act III: Power Plays and Public Perception

Legal Showdown: Gadon’s 65% Edge or a House of Cards?

I give Gadon a 65% chance of skating, citing free speech and no pending case (People v. Godoy, G.R. No. 115908-09, February 20, 1997). But the Court’s patience is thin. Gadon’s rap sheet—disbarment, fines—makes leniency a gamble. A ₱30,000 fine, as I predict, is likely, but a harsher ruling looms if the Court wants to flex. They’re not just judging Gadon; they’re defending their own spine.

Public Opinion: Topacio’s Decorum vs. Gadon’s Drama?

Topacio plays the grown-up, wielding Rule 71 like a shield. X posts (@Hector_deLector) praise his credibility over Gadon’s disbarred chaos. But others (@Ruffy_reacts) marvel at Gadon’s fame despite his record. In a polarized Philippines, Topacio’s “duty” appeals to institutionalists, while Gadon’s bombast captivates anti-elite crowds. Neither owns the crowd—yet.

Long Game: Gadon’s Defiance or Topacio’s Redemption?

If Gadon’s fined but unrepentant, he emerges as the Teflon populist, his base roaring louder. If Topacio loses, his reputation takes a hit—not fatal, but bruised. He’ll be the lawyer who swung and missed. The real winner? Gadon’s chaos, thriving on attention, not verdicts. Topacio bets on decorum, but in 2025 Philippines, decorum’s a hard sell.

Epilogue: Fixing the Circus Before It Burns Down

Judiciary’s Dilemma: Smack Gadon or Risk Weakness?

The Supreme Court must hit Gadon hard—jail time, even a day, to show public officials aren’t untouchable. But overpunishing risks martyring him, proving his “lapdog” narrative. A balanced ruling—a hefty fine, a forced apology—restores dignity without feeding his ego. Let him off, and they look spineless.

Public’s Challenge: See Through the Smoke and Mirrors

Filipinos, exhausted by political noise, must cut through the fog. Gadon’s no hero; he’s a showman. Topacio’s no saint; he’s a strategist. Ask: who gains from this circus? Not the judiciary, not the poor Gadon’s supposed to serve. Demand leaders who don’t treat courts like piñatas.

Media’s Role: Stop Fanning the Flames

We’ve fed this beast, splashing Gadon’s rants and Topacio’s petitions across headlines. Quit amplifying their egos; expose their motives. Investigate Gadon’s poverty alleviation record—does it exist? Probe Topacio’s client list—why so many rogues? The media’s job isn’t to referee their karaoke duel (yes, Gadon proposed one); it’s to hold power accountable.

The Gavel’s Edge: Decorum or Drama?

As the Supreme Court deliberates, the gavel hovers like a guillotine. Will it slice Gadon’s bravado or Topacio’s sanctimony? Or both? This isn’t just a legal spat; it’s a stress test for a democracy where institutions wobble and clowns steal the spotlight. The curtain’s up, but the ending’s unwritten. One thing’s certain: Filipinos deserve better than this legal vaudeville.

Gggg

Key Citations

Disclaimer: This is legal jazz, not gospel. It’s all about interpretation, not absolutes. So, listen closely, but don’t take it as the final word.