MANILA: Vice President Sara Duterte’s defence team on Wednesday (July 8) sought to dismantle the testimony of the prosecution’s first witness in her impeachment trial, arguing that the charge arising from the “threats” she made in 2024 against President Marcos, his wife Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former Speaker Martin Romualdez “are not ‘other high crimes’ contemplated by the Constitution as grounds for impeachment.”
On the third day of the trial before the Senate impeachment court, defence lawyers focused their cross-examination on National Bureau of Investigation senior agent John Mark Calilung, questioning the basis of the bureau’s investigation and pointing to what they described as major gaps in the evidence linking Duterte to an alleged assassination plot.
Defence counsel Mark Vinluan argued that House prosecutors failed to present evidence that Duterte had hired an assassin to kill the Marcos couple and Romualdez.
“When VP Sara uttered those words, she was not responding as Sara Duterte, the Vice President, but as Sara Duterte the wife, mother, daughter and sister, who only sought to protect herself and her family. Operation Romanov is in place, and the threat against their lives is real,” Vinluan told the impeachment court.
He claimed Duterte had been subjected to “unauthorised intelligence and surveillance operations by government agents that exposed her family to security threats, thereby causing intense trauma and uncontrollable fear.”
“Her homes in Davao and Manila were profiled, and this is proven by classified gazing reports. Her trusted security personnel were removed,” Vinluan added.
The proceedings centred on Article IV of the impeachment complaint, which accuses Duterte of issuing grave threats against Marcos, the first lady, and his cousin Romualdez during an online press briefing on Nov. 23, 2024.
No proof of hiring an assassin
“There is no proof of any contracting of an assassin. The prosecution admitted that the video does not prove any fact other than its existence. The prosecution has no other competent evidence to prove that VP Sara contracted an assassin,” Vinluan told the court.
He argued that the prosecution itself had acknowledged that Duterte’s remarks did not “100 per cent” establish that she had hired an assassin, and that those statements alone could not be considered a high crime or an impeachable offence.
The phrase “other high crimes” is contained in Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution as part of a list of impeachable offences. Also on the list are culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust.
Vinluan said Duterte’s remarks should instead be viewed in the “proper context” of the threats against her and her family.
“And while her response (to the threats) was unconventional, it was justified,” Vinluan said.
The defence anchored its argument on the exchanges during Tuesday’s proceedings, when Senator Risa Hontiveros asked the prosecution whether Duterte’s statements proved she had actually contracted an assassin to kill the Marcoses and Romualdez.
Prosecution counsel Amando Ligutan then acknowledged that the recordings did not conclusively prove an assassin had been hired, but explained that they formed part of a series of statements demonstrating Duterte’s intent.
At one point, the court’s presiding officer, Senator Francis Escudero, noted that the discussion had already touched on the central issue before the impeachment court: whether Duterte’s acts amounted to impeachable offences.
Vinluan also maintained that the term “assassin” was supplied by other parties who interpreted Duterte’s remarks out of context.
Triggered by Lopez detention
To establish what it insisted to be the context, the defence presented parts of the video of the Nov. 23 briefing, including clips of Duterte’s chief of staff Zuleika Lopez who that day was cited in contempt by the House committee investigating the confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education.
The video showed Lopez breaking down as she objected to her planned transfer to the Correctional Institution for Women in Mandaluyong City, saying she was not a criminal and expressing fears for her safety.
The defence argued that Duterte’s statements were triggered by Lopez’s detention and by the government actions against the Vice President and her staff.
When Hontiveros asked whether the defence was claiming the alleged threats stemmed from Lopez’s detention, defence lawyer Carlo Narvasa answered in the affirmative.
Narvasa said Duterte and her associates had been subjected to “systematic oppression” by the House committee chaired by Representative Joel Chua, now one of the House prosecutors.
“There was a systematic oppression made by the House of Representatives dating back even before their mini-trial,” Narvasa said. Lopez was cited in contempt, he said, despite her cooperation and her lawyer was also prevented barred from accompanying her for the transfer.
When Hontiveros asked whether that meant that grave threats could be justified if there were legitimate reasons behind them, Narvasa replied that this was not the defence team’s position.
Escudero later reminded senator-judges to avoid posing questions that require counsels to draw legal conclusions, saying such matters are for closing arguments. Hontiveros said she respected the ruling but noted that previous impeachment trials allowed broader questioning by senator-judges.
Defence questions NBI probe
Narvasa also scrutinised the NBI investigation, noting the absence of sworn statements from the three targets of Duterte’s threats.
Calilung acknowledged he had no personal knowledge of Marcos, Araneta-Marcos or Romualdez filing criminal complaints. He also confirmed that none of them personally appeared before the NBI.
He said the bureau conducted its investigation motu proprio or without a formal complainant.
The witness also admitted that the NBI’s revised affidavit dated Feb. 10, 2025, did not include affidavits from the offended parties or the journalists who attended Duterte’s press briefing.
Narvasa then asked: “Did you really investigate this case?” Calilung did not answer after the prosecution objected.
Calilung said he instead executed an affidavit attesting to the minutes of investigators’ interviews. The NBI also complied with the requirements set by the Department of Justice and secured a certification on the sufficiency of its preliminary investigation. he added.
Senators seek clarification
Senator Bam Aquino underscored the seriousness of the alleged “hit man” angle but deferred questioning after Calilung clarified that he was assigned only to authenticate Duterte’s videos and not investigate the alleged assassination plot.
The prosecutors said they would present their second witness, NBI Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc, in relation to Article IV on Monday.
Senator Erwin Tulfo, meanwhile, asked whether the NBI could file criminal charges even without a formal complaint from the intended victim.
Calilung cited Republic Act No. 10867, saying the bureau has authority to investigate threats against the President, Vice President, Senate President, Speaker of the House and Chief Justice.
“If we found that the evidence is enough that there is a crime committed, we will file a case because that’s the output of our investigation,” he said.
Prosecution unfazed
Despite the lengthy cross-examination, the House prosecution panel insisted the defence failed to weaken its first witness.
“The testimony was neither shaken nor punctured,” prosecution adviser Robert Ace Barbers told reporters, saying Calilung remained consistent throughout his testimony.
Legal spokesperson Benjamin Tolosa Jr. said prosecutors saw no need for redirect examination because the defence did not undermine Calilung’s principal testimony authenticating Duterte’s Nov. 23 video. - Philippine Daily Inquirer/ANN
