House prosecution: Sara Duterte's freedom of speech 'not absolute'

The House prosecution panel on Saturday maintained that freedom is "not absolute" after the camp of Vice President Sara Duterte invoked freedom of expression as part of her answer in the four articles of impeachment against her, including the threats she allegedly made against President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr and his family.

“All freedom are also subject to some regulation. One cannot go around the streets accusing anybody of something without the necessary consequence of that action, either verbally or acted upon,” said House prosecution impeachment trial spokesperson Zia Adiong of Lanao del Sur at a news forum in Quezon City.

“‘Yung sinabi niya sa Presidente, sa Unang Ginang, at saka sa former Speaker. I think for someone who has that, enjoys a certain privilege influence in following, we should also take that into consideration na hindi mo pupwede hindi bigyan ng seriousness ito,” Adiong added, emphasizing that Duterte said herself she was not joking.

Societal effect

Adiong also reminded public officials to have the civic duty to involve themselves in value formation to become good examples for the Filipino youth.

“At the very least, the societal effect of the threat is nano-normalize ‘yung pagbabanta sa kapwa-tao. Na hindi dapat iyon nangyayari, kanino naman at maski anong oras,” he said.

(At the very least, the societal effect of the threat to others is normalized. That it should not happen, to anyone, at any time.)

The camp of Duterte invoked freedom of expression, the confidentiality of bank records and Anti-Money Laundering Council reports, and the lack of sufficient evidence in answering the four articles of impeachment against her point by point.

'Protected speech'

Duterte's camp replied to the impeachment articles in a document dated May 25, 2026. It may be recalled that her defense team released only an executive summary after her camp filed its reply.

On the threat supposedly made in a live video in November 2024 against Marcos, Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and then-Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, Duterte's camp said, "respondent merely exercised constitutionally protected speech in opposition to the policies, conduct, actuations, and overreach of the current administration."

“Freedom of expression is accorded with primacy and high esteem in our jurisdiction as it is a fundamental postulate of our constitutional systems. It applies not only to those who are favorably received but also to those that offend, shock, or disturb," the reply read.

It added, "No proof was shown that the respondent actually contracted an assassin to kill the President, the First Lady, and the former Speaker of the House.”

"[There] is no threat because the respondent merely answered a reporter who asked her about a certain operation Romanov against her and her family," the reply read.

“Her response was neither a factual assertion of any factual threat nor with intent to do harm,” it added. —VAL, GMA News