President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. on Monday laughed off Vice President Sara Duterte’s allegation that his administration was trying to prevent the 2028 presidential elections.

During an event in Pasay City, Marcos was asked to comment on Duterte’s statement but simply laughed and shook his head in response.

Duterte made the allegation in a statement on Saturday while denying that she knew dismissed police officer Rodulfo Gracioso Jr. or had received money from him.

She accused Marcos of being “desperate” to bring her down and alleged that the administration was pushing for Charter change to prevent the 2028 elections and remain in power.

“The desperation of the administration to bring me down, push for Charter Change, prevent the 2028 elections, and cling to power is becoming increasingly diabolical,” Duterte said.

Duterte also called on Marcos to undergo a public drug test and address allegations surrounding the flood control scandal, saying Filipinos wanted change.

“No amount of political maneuvering, propaganda, or manufactured distractions can ultimately silence the Filipino people,” she said.

Her remarks came as she denied allegations made by Gracioso, who previously served as part of the security detail of former House Speaker and Marinduque Rep. Lord Allan Velasco.

Gracioso alleged that he delivered suitcases containing cash to Duterte and other members of the Duterte family on Velasco’s instructions. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) is investigating the claims.

Duterte dismissed the allegations as “another media stunt” intended to revive what she described as a “faltering impeachment case.”

For its part, Malacañang rejected Duterte’s characterization of the allegations as political maneuvering.

Palace Press Officer Claire Castro said Duterte should respond to accusations against her with evidence, noting that her impeachment proceedings fall under the constitutional mandate of the Senate.

Malacañang also urged the Vice President to address accusations with evidence instead of relying on “red herring” and “ad hominem” arguments.