Defense counsel argued Tuesday that Vice President Sara Duterte’s statement about hiring someone to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. did not meet the legal definition of a threat, framing it instead as a reply given during an exchange with reporters.
The characterization came from lawyer Mark Vinluan on the fifth day of Duterte’s impeachment trial, as he resumed questioning Jeremy Lotoc, National Bureau of Investigation regional director for the Bangsamoro region and the second witness called by House prosecutors.
“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 mere response to a question and answer,” Vinluan said. He maintained the words were never directed at their subjects: “It was never aimed directly at the President, First Lady, and the former Speaker. In other words, had they not watched the video, they wouldn’t have known about it. In other words, your Honor, there was no threats to begin with and even the discussion on the elements is not applicable insofar as determining the innocence or guilt of the Vice President.”
At issue is Article IV of the Articles of Impeachment, which accuses Duterte of grave threats and inciting to sedition. The provision stems from her online press briefing on November 23, 2024, when she said she had arranged for the President, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and then-House Speaker Martin Romualdez to be killed if she herself were slain.
Lotoc, a former chief of the NBI Cybercrime Division, had helped lead the bureau’s inquiry into that briefing. Pressed by Vinluan on whether grave threats and inciting to sedition rank as felonies, and whether they amount to impeachable conduct, the witness deferred to the court. “If you mean impeachable offenses, whether or not magka-qualify ba siya as betrayal of public trust, it’s the appreciation of the judges, your Honor. Wala po sa amin,” Lotoc said.
Senator-judge Vicente “Tito” Sotto III used the exchange to question why those particular offenses were being litigated before the impeachment court at all. “Naliligaw ako..sa discussion ng grave threats and inciting to sedition. Hindi ba sa regular courts naka-charge yun, Mr. Witness?” he asked. Lotoc agreed that they were.
Sotto pushed further on the distinction between criminal prosecution and the case at hand. “Pero sa regular courts ‘yun fini-file diba? Ang naka-file dito sa impeachment court ay betrayal of public trust diba tsaka other high crimes? Hindi grave threats at inciting to sedition?” he said, adding, “Pero hindi ‘yun ang main charge diba? Betrayal of public trust? Kasi naliligaw ako eh.”
