GMA Brandtalk
Tracking
Archives
Sara Duterte impeachment trial Week 1: Is the VP assassination threat impeachable? Prosecution, defense tussle
Prosecution says assassination threat 'betrayal of public trust' | 'Not impeachable' says defense
The historic impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte began this week with the Senate impeachment court electing senator-judge Francis Escudero as presiding officer and settling forthwith that the required number of votes to convict was 16 senators.
In their opening statement on Tuesday, prosecutors said the fourth Article of Impeachment on grave threats and inciting to sedition carried the most weight out of the four articles.
"This strikes at the heart of the Constitutional order," lead prosecutor and Batangas Representative Gerville Luistro told the court.
Luistro said Duterte's impeachment is not an act of vengeance, but to exact accountability.
"Ito na po ang pinakamatindi (This is the gravest one). And unlike in many cases, which depend upon competing accounts, this evidence comes substantially from the respondent's own recorded public statements," she said.
"Hindi ito para maghiganti. Hindi ito para manalo sa pulitika. Ito ay para sagutin ang tanong: May saysay pa ba ang pananagutan sa ating bansa?" Luistro said.
(This is not to exact revenge. It's not about political victory. This is to answer the question: Is accountability still worth something in our country?)
Burden of proof
Defense counsel Atty. Sheila Sison countered that the impeachment was nothing but an effort to overthrow an official elected by 32 million Filipinos.
"Whatever one's political persuasion is, the reality is that the prosecution now comes before this court to remove a Vice President chosen by an overwhelming number of the electorate. The burden of proof never shifts. He who accuses must prove his allegations with evidence that meets not only the degree of proof required and also meets the evidentiary standards of admissibility, credibility, relevance, materiality and competence," she told the court.
Objection, objection...
Prosecutors opened with Article 4 of the Articles of Impeachment on grave threats and inciting to sedition against the government by presenting National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Special Agent John Mark Calilung, a digital forensics expert who investigated the Vice President's controversial statements.
Private prosecutor Atty. Virgil Ligutan presented Calilung after the court dismissed objections by defense counsel Atty. Carlo Joaquin Narvasa to exclude his testimony as evidence for not being included in the two original complaints that formed the Articles of Impeachment.
Escudero cited Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan in saying that prosecutors may add or rely on evidence not stated in the articles.
"The motion to exclude by the Counsel for the Respondent is hereby denied… prosecutors may add or rely on evidence during pre-trial even if the evidence is not stated in the complaint or articles, because only a summary is required to be stated in the Articles of Impeachment, in this case, and/or complaint, and not a complete list of the prosecution's evidence and/or witnesses," he said.
'Threat' on video
Calilung presented to the court portions of a November 23, 2024 online press conference of the Vice President, wherein she declared that if she is killed, an assassin would move to kill President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and then-Speaker Martin Romualdez.
He also introduced to the court additional evidence of Duterte's remark including an interview on November 26, 2024, wherein Duterte did not deny making the threat earlier. Also introduced was an October 18, 2024 statement wherein the Vice President said she had wanted to behead Marcos, unearth the remains of his father, Ferdinand Sr., from the Libingan ng Bayani and throw it into the West Philippine Sea.
Prosecutors sought to show a consistent pattern of behavior by the Vice President to destabilize the government.
"Respondent's pattern of public utterances and conduct, punctuated by a repeated use of violent language and intimidating demeanor, tend to undermine the safety of the President, as well as the peace and order of the country, and cause the destabilization of the government she has sworn to protect," the Articles read.
In the video shown to the court, Duterte said that she has contracted an assassin to kill the three in the event that something happens to her in a response to a question that referenced "Operation Romanov."
READ: What is 'Operation Romanov,' referred to by Sara Duterte's defense team?
"Yes. Huwag kang mag-alala, ma'am, sa security ko kasi may kinausap na ako na tao. Sinabi ko sa kanya, kapag pinatay ako, patayin mo si BBM, si Liza Araneta, at si Martin Romualdez. No joke. No joke. Nag-deal-in na ako, ma'am. 'Pag namatay ako, sabi ko, huwag ka tumigil ha, hanggang hindi mo mapatay sila. And then he said, yes," Duterte said.
(Yes. Don't worry about my security, ma'am. I already spoke to someone. I told this person, if I'm killed, kill BBM, Liza Araneta, and Martin Romualdez. No joke. No joke. I already made a deal, ma'am. I said, if I die, do not stop until you have killed them. And then, he said, yes.)
Senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano asked Calilung if such was a "conditional threat," to which Calilung said it was "absolute."
Two weeks of training
For its part, the defense panel sought to discredit Calilung's testimony and provenance of his investigation.
Narvasa noted Calilung's "whopping two weeks" of forensics training from digital forensics tools supplier MaxCor Interventures, but Calilung countered he has several other certifications. In an answer to senator-judge Francis Pangilinan, Calilung said he is also a degree holder and a certified public accountant.
The defense likewise scrutinized the provenance of Calilung's investigation noting that the NBI was under the Department of Justice, which in turn was under the Executive Branch and the President. It stopped short of suggesting, however, that Marcos ordered the investigation.
Complaint referral
Narvasa also scrutinized the provenance of the complaint referral, noting that the findings of the original January 30 version stated that these do not "contain elements of a crime," but underwent revisions.
He then presented a certification from the Department of Justice (DOJ) signed by Senior State Prosecutor Jayvee Bantug, which stated that the complaint referral needed to be returned to the NBI for case build-up.
Calilung said the NBI complied with the orders of the DOJ and submitted another complaint-referral on February 10, 2025.
He likewise said the investigation was done motu propio, or upon the NBI's own initiative, based on its mandate even without Marcos—considered offended party—filing a complaint.
'But are they impeachable offenses?'
Senators teetered on jumping the gun on the basis and evidence of the first article this early in the trial, but Escudero was quick to advise fellow senators against asking questions that lead to answers for the conclusion of the presentation of evidence.
Senator judge Risa Hontiveros told Ligutan that the videos were not proof that the Vice President contracted assassins and asked: "But are they impeachable offenses?"
The question prompted the court to give equal time for both parties to answer it.
Ligutan said the assassination threats betrayed the public trust.
"Ang pagbabanta ng Bise-Presidente sa buhay ng Pangulo ng Republika ng Pilipinas, hindi po iyan normal. Iyan po ay unang pagkakataon na nangyari iyan. Nakipagkontrata sa isang mamamatay-tao to do that (The threats of the Vice President on the life of the President of the Republic of the Philippines are not normal. This is the first time that this happened. A contract was made with a killer to do that). Even without going into the question, is that a criminal act? That act, 110% sure, betrayed the public trust the Vice President got in the previous elections."
'Operation Romanov'
Defense counsel Atty. Mark Vinluan countered by saying that the alleged threats do not rise to an impeachable offense.
"The alleged grave threats and inciting to sedition, these are defined by the Revised Penal Code and are punishable by prison correccional. Thus, these fall under the jurisdiction of the MTC (Municipal Trial Court) or first level courts. These charges are not other high crimes as contemplated by the Constitution as grounds for impeachment and are therefore not impeachable," Vinluan said.
Vinluan added that the Vice President was merely responding to a question about threats on her own life.
"She did not commit an impeachable offense. She drew the line in the sand and said enough is enough. That is the meaning, and that is the context. When VP Sara uttered those words, she was not responding as Sara Duterte, the Vice-President, but Sara Duterte, the wife, mother, daughter, and sister who only sought to protect her own and her family members' lives. 'Operation Romanov' is in place, and the threat against their lives is real," Vinluan said.
"Si VP Sara na mismo ang nagsabi na hindi 'assassin' ang kinausap niya. (VP Sara herself said that she didn't talk to an 'assassin.') This term only came from people who took her statements out of their proper context and tried to exaggerate them for what they really meant. She and her family were threatened and while her response was unconventional, it was justified," he added.
The prosecution is expected to continue with the same Article next week and present Duterte's chief of staff Atty. Zuleika Lopez, and NBI Regional Director Atty. Jeremy Lontoc, and House Legislative Security Bureau Executive Director Atty. Belinda Bello.
The Senate impeachment court is also expected to conduct oral arguments on Wednesday, July 15, on the legality of issuing subpoenas on the tax records and bank accounts of Duterte and her husband Atty. Manases Carpio. — VDV, GMA News
