The reliability of the prosecution’s central video evidence became a point of contention Tuesday when Senator-judge Risa Hontiveros pressed House lawyers over what the recordings of Vice President Sara Duterte actually established.
Hontiveros zeroed in on the gap between inflammatory language and an actual crime. She wanted to know why the footage, on its own, should count as grounds for removal from office. “None of these statements are proof that the Vice President actually contracted an assassin or hired one. Why are these acts impeachable?” she asked.
Prosecution counsel Atty. Amando Ligutan pushed back on the premise that the clips should be read in isolation. He told the court the recordings were not meant to stand alone but to demonstrate a settled purpose to harm the country’s top leadership. “Hindi po ‘yan nag-iisang statement ng Vice President. Kung hindi, ‘yun po ang culmination sa mga series ng statements ng Vice President kung saan sinasabi niya talagang gusto niyang patayin ‘yung Presidente, First Lady, at former speaker of the House,” he said.
The exchange took place during the second day of the trial on July 7, 2026, as the impeachment court began weighing Article IV, the charge accusing Duterte of grave threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez. The prosecution has said Duterte’s remarks trace back to a November 23, 2024 online briefing, delivered after she visited her detained chief of staff, in which she declared she had arranged for the three officials to be killed should she herself be slain.
The questioning drew a procedural objection from Sen. Pia Cayetano, who moved to have Hontiveros’s exchange with Ligutan struck from the record. In Cayetano’s view, the prosecution’s replies had drifted into argument that belonged in a summation rather than in a witness examination. “When we allow this happen, na-shortcut na natin ‘yung process… Even I make a mistake… Please call me out if I make a mistake and ask the kind of question that should not be asked properly by a judge,” she said.
Hontiveros defended the line of inquiry as an effort to test how the footage connected to the specific allegations laid out in the charge. “My question had to do with how the evidence is material to the allegations in the articles of impeachment… I wanted to appreciate the evidence before me,” she said.
Ligutan had earlier walked the court through additional clips beyond the assassination remark, including segments in which Duterte spoke of a “toxic” dynamic with Marcos and described picturing herself severing his head. Testimony that day came from NBI Cyber Investigation Senior Agent John Mark Calilung, whose forensic work on the livestream the prosecution used to anchor its case.
