VP team: No threat made

MANILA, Philippines —  The camp of Vice President Sara Duterte insisted yesterday that her remarks during a 2024 online press conference about contracting a person to kill President Marcos, First Lady Liza Marcos and former House speaker Martin Romualdez did not constitute a threat.

“It is our position that the statements made by the Vice President were not threats in the first place. That’s why we were categorizing it as a response, a mere response, to a Q&A (question and answer),” Duterte counsel Mark Vinluan said.

“In other words, had they not watched the video, they would not have known about it,” he argued. “There was no threat to begin with. Even the discussion on the elements is not really applicable in so far as determining the innocence or guilt of the Vice President.”

Duterte herself issued a statement yesterday, saying there was no evidence to support the complaints for grave threats.

Vinluan issued the statements at the impeachment trial after Sen. Pia Cayetano asked how prosecution witness Jeremy Lotoc, a National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agent, views a grave threat.

Vinluan also said Duterte did not commit any act to overthrow the government.

During the defense’s cross-examination of Lotoc, Vinluan said the utterances of Duterte during her online press conference were part of her “freedom of speech.”

“As long as we do not commit an act to overthrow the government, this is allowed, correct?” Vinluan asked Lotoc.

“It depends, Sir, if it falls under inciting to sedition,” Lotoc answered.

Vinluan asked Lotoc if Duterte directly urged the public to overthrow the government.

“There was no such kind of statement, but there was a sort of tendency because of the utterances,” Lotoc said.

Vinluan maintained that Duterte merely voiced her opinion during the press conference.

“Just like any other ordinary Filipino who has the freedom of speech, she should be allowed to do that… unless we are under martial law again, she should be able to speak,”Vinluan maintained.

Lotoc replied to Vinluan, “That’s hypothetical, Sir.”

During the cross-examination, Vinluan also asked Lotoc if the NBI issued a subpoena to Duterte.

“There was no subpoena…The letter was to inform the Vice President that we are also investigating the threat against her life. So therefore, we need her presence or any information that can help in the investigation,” Lotoc said.

Vinluan noted that in a regular case, the prosecutor sends out the subpoena both to the complainant and to the respondent.

Meanwhile, Lotoc maintained the reversal of the initial finding of the Department of Justice (DOJ) was part of the case buildup.

“The evaluation and case build-up is discussed by the prosecutor and the investigator,” Lotoc said.

Lotoc explained that the initial affidavit was dated Jan. 30, 2025.

“We submitted to the DOJ, and that was already Feb. 10, 2025. So, the date is different. So, we will definitely change the date. Because we went through the process of compliance based on the evaluation,” Lotoc added.

Meanwhile, Duterte stressed that the House prosecution failed to provide evidence on her alleged “grave threats” against the President.

“The country witnessed what I have been saying all along: the complaint is not supported by evidence,” Duterte said in a statement.

Lotoc, NBI regional director for the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM), said based on the investigation by the bureau’s cybercrime division, the alleged threats issued by the Vice President were serious, although he couldn’t tell her exact motive.

“Repeatedly claiming that there were threats when none existed, inventing an assassin where there was none, and fabricating evidence to support those claims does not transform fiction into fact,” Duterte said.

“Instead, such actions undermine the integrity of public institutions, erode public trust, waste public resources, and corrupt the search for truth,” she added.

During questioning by private prosecutor Virgil Ligutan, Lotoc testified that Duterte appeared to be “furious and fuming mad” during her 2024 online video press conference.

“An impeachment proceeding should be grounded in credible evidence, not speculation, manufactured narratives, or unsupported allegations. The rule of law depends on facts, not fiction,” Duterte added.

The prosecution played portions of Duterte’s Zoom press conference, where she repeatedly uttered expletives against Marcos, the First Lady and Romualdez.

Lotoc also confirmed that the NBI examined earlier statements made by Duterte, including an October 2024 press conference where she allegedly said she imagined “cutting” the President’s head off.

According to Lotoc, the NBI documented how Duterte’s remarks prompted responses from the Presidential Communications Office (PCO), National Security Council (NSC), Philippine National Police (PNP), Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and other government agencies.

He said the PCO classified Duterte’s remarks as an “active threat,” while former executive secretary Lucas Bersamin directed the Presidential Security Group (PSG) to investigate.

Mum on witness

The Duterte camp was mum on whether it will present a witness to prove that the Vice President did not actually hire an assassin to kill the President.

“We cannot (say) because again we do not telegraph what we do, you know? But definitely the evidence is there and just wait for our turn to present our evidence,” defense spokesperson Michael Poa said at a press conference.

Poa belittled the survey showing that the presentation of the House prosecution team was better compared to the defense team.

“We don’t really look at surveys. At the end of the day, ultimately, what will matter will be the decision of the impeachment court. So, if we will start to count, I think it will be a futile exercise,” Poa added.

Defense counsel Mark Vinluan argued that despite the Vice President’s alleged threats, no high crime was committed and making the remarks would not constitute an impeachable offense.

Vinluan noted that the prosecution itself acknowledged the video “may not actually 100 percent prove” that Duterte had indeed contracted a hitman to carry out the alleged assassination plot.

The defense team resumed its cross-examination of Lotoc, who was asked if the NBI investigated the alleged threat to the Vice President and if a subpoena was issued to Duterte.

“There is no subpoena, Sir. The letter is to inform the Vice President that we are also investigating the threat against her life,” Lotoc said.

Sara presence

Meanwhile, Duterte may once again show up at the Senate as her chief of staff Zuleika Lopez was summoned to testify as witness for the House prosecution team in the ongoing impeachment trial.

“Actually, I spoke to her a few minutes ago before entering the Senate. She’s not sure if she’ll be here today. She’s unsure because she has scheduled meetings,” defense spokesperson Michael Poa said at a press conference.

Lopez was subpoenaed as prosecution witness in the impeachment trial against the Vice President, who allegedly issued grave threats on President Marcos, First Lady Liza Marcos and former House speaker Martin Romualdez.

“It’s possible,” Poa added.

Duterte arrived at the Senate on June 7 to meet with her 16-member defense team. She declined to be interviewed upon the advice of her lawyers but issued a brief statement, saying, “In this bloodbath and bludgeoning, I will be bloodied but unbowed.”

Why feel threatened?

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano questioned Lotoc why the alleged targets, including the President, would feel threatened if Duterte’s statement was conditional on her own death.
“But the threat was, ‘If I am killed, kill the three of them.’ If they had no plan to kill her, why would they feel threatened? Did that not come into your mind as an investigator?” Cayetano asked.
Lotoc replied that the NBI viewed Duterte’s statement as an “event-based” threat that could be triggered if the Vice President died, regardless of the cause.
“God forbid, the Vice President could die for one reason or another, not necessarily because of the three. But people may think they were responsible, and that could trigger the instruction,” Lotoc said.
“From the point of view of law enforcement, that’s chaos. It’s a matter of national security,” he added.

Cayetano also cited apparent gaps, inconsistencies and errors in the NBI’s findings.
Cayetano asked Lotoc if the investigators coordinated with the Presidential Security Command (PSG), the Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG) and other agencies that also looked into the alleged threats.
Lotoc said he was unaware of any coordination, explaining that exchanges of information were done on a “need-to-know basis.”
Cayetano also pointed out an “inconsistency” between the NBI’s testimony and its affidavit, noting that investigators described Duterte’s statements before the impeachment court as “absolute,” while the affidavit of investigation characterized them as “conditional.”

Cayetano likewise questioned an error in the affidavit stating that Duterte had served as justice secretary instead of education secretary.
“That’s not a typo. The Department of Justice and Department of Education are two different things,” he said.
Cayetano distinguished between the two allegations under Article IV of the Articles of Impeachment, saying prosecutors may argue that Duterte’s statements constitute an impeachable offense, but the separate allegation that she hired an assassin must be supported by sufficient evidence.
“Because it is basic that if someone alleges that someone contracted an assassin, you have to prove it,” he added.

Loopholes

Finding loopholes in the testimony of the House prosecution witness is “more powerful” than objections being raised by Vice President Sara Duterte’s legal team, a law professor observed yesterday.

In an interview with Dzmm, UP College of Law associate dean and assistant professor Atty. Paolo Emmanuel Tamase noted that defense lawyer Mark Vinluan repeatedly questioned typographical errors in the documentary evidence presented by National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) regional director Jeremy Lotoc.

“That point is more powerful, what they did, their (defense) tactics seem to have changed, (in a way that) ‘We’re no longer focusing on the objection to the witness’ presentation. We’re focusing on the defense, on how to find loopholes in the testimony.’ That’s more powerful compared to blocking the testimony,” Tamase said.

Tamase said public pressure is also needed in order to redirect the narrative of the impeachment trial.

“If the pressure to go for a more inquisitorial instead of a legal type of proceeding will not come from the Senate, the public is there. It’s important for the public to keep the pressure up,”  Tamase said in an interview with “Storycon” on One News.

“The media is important in this as well. We saw the effects of these in the last few months in terms of the Senate being pressured to get their act together,” he added.

IBP appeal

The president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) appealed to the senator-judges to rule based on evidence and not on their political connections.

IBP national president Atty. Allan Panolong maintained that while the impeachment trial against Duterte “is both political and a measure to call for accountability,” it could also determine the fate of the senator-judges in the 2028 elections.
“Take note, the 2208 elections are fast approaching,” he said. –   Mark Ernest Villeza, Ghio Ong