Sara Duterte's Lawyers Admit She Is Guilty In Bizarre Defense

Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial has finally begun. With 92 scheduled days of testimony and only 3 days per week allotted for the trial it will be months before this is over. That is 30 weeks meaning this trial will likely last until next year. Perhaps it will be fun to take a look at the arguments of Sara's defense team which up until now has been all about protocol while ignoring the substantial issues at play.

In week one of the trial the prosecution began with Sara's threat to assassinate President Marcos and his wife. The witness they called is an NBI expert and the whole point of his testimony was to ascertain the authenticity of the video. Sara's defense team's arguments are mind blowing. 

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2260230/defense-argument-sara-dutertes-threat-not-a-high-crime

Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense team on Wednesday 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, defense 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.

Defense counsel Mark Vinluan argued that House prosecutors failed to present evidence that Duterte had hired an assassin to kill the Marcos couple and Romualdez.

So, they admit the video is real and a threat was made but it does not rise to the level of a "high crime" because there is no evidence she hired an assassin. Nevermind the fact that proving the existence of an assassin was not the point for this witness. Also, do Sara's threats amount to a low crime?

“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 “unauthorized 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 centered 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.

Operation Romanov? What proof is there that such a plot was enacted against the Duterte family? The argument here is that because Duterte felt threatened she was justified in threatening to kill the President! 

“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 percent” establish that she had hired an assassin, and that those statements alone could not be considered a high crime or an impeachable offense.

The phrase “other high crimes” is contained in Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution as part of a list of impeachable offenses. 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.

There it is! The defense ADMITS Sara made grave threats to the lives of the President, his wife, and the Speaker of the House. The defense is that these were justified because she felt threatened and because no assassin has been produced these threats do not rise to the level of a high crime and thus are not an impeachable offense. 

More than that, the defense claimed she was echoing the sentiments of ordinary Filipinos!

The defense lawyer also said that the alleged grave threats and inciting to sedition falls under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan trial court and first level courts, and should not be considered as high crimes under the Constitution.

“She never incited sedition. She merely echoed the voice of ordinary Filipinos. Her message that day only reflected what was already in their hearts and minds. There was no betrayal of public trust. She actually upheld the people’s trust as she spoke for and behalf of the people,” Vinluan said.

https://www.manilatimes.net/2026/07/09/news/witness-on-assassin-to-testify-at-impeachment-trial-prosecutors-say/2381093/amp

Is there really a desire to kill the President and his wife in the hearts and minds of ordinary Filipinos? What an incredible way to dump on your constituency. What a horrible defense. 

Threatening to kill the President or anyone else is a grave threat and is a crime in the Philippines whether or not one has procured a hitman. 

Grave threats, A282 Revised Penal Code

1. Concept

Grave threats – refers to the crime of threatening another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime.

a. Legal basis

Art. 282. Grave threats. – Any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime, shall suffer:

1. The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the crime he threatened to commit, if the offender shall have made the threat demanding money or imposing any other condition, even though not unlawful, and said offender shall have attained his purpose. If the offender shall not have attained his purpose, the penalty lower by two (2) degrees shall be imposed.

If the threat be made in writing or through a middleman, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period.

2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000), if the threat shall not have been made subject to a condition. (As amended by R.A. 10951) Article 284. Bond for good behavior. – In all cases falling within the two next preceding articles [Articles 282 and 283], the person making the threats may also be required to give bail not to molest the person threatened, or if he shall fail to give such bail, he shall be sentenced to destierro.

https://legalresource.ph/grave-threats-a282-revised-penal-code/

Here are Sara's exact words:

"Don't worry, Ma'am, about my security, because I have already talked to someone. I told him, if they kill me, kill BBM [President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.], Liza Araneta [the First Lady], and Martin Romualdez [former House Speaker]. No joke, no joke. I have already given my instructions, Ma'am. If I die, I said, 'do not stop until you kill them.' And then he said yes."

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2260041/sara-dutertes-kill-threat-vs-marcos-absolute-says-witness

It appears from her words that a hitman has already been hired and is waiting for the exact time. She even reiterates twice that it is not a joke. It's a necessary and warranted pre-supposition that she has hired a hitman. Either way the prosecution says they will be presenting additional evidence regarding the existence of this alleged hitman. 

https://www.manilatimes.net/2026/07/09/news/witness-on-assassin-to-testify-at-impeachment-trial-prosecutors-say/2381093

THE prosecution has confirmed to the Senate impeachment court that it will present a witness on the supposed hitman allegedly hired by Vice President Sara Duterte to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

It's not over and yet the defense has already leaped to the conclusion that no proof for the existence of a hitman has been given when that was NOT the point of John Mark Calilung's testimony. With a shoddy defense like this things are not looking up for Sara Duterte. 

The God Culture: What Is A Shadow?

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has another Foundations lesson. It seems these short articles, outlines really, are filling in for his videos this year. This week Tim asks, "What is a shadow?" If you have been paying attention to this blog then you would know Tim thinks the shadow, the law which points to Christ, is mo are substantial and important than the one to whom it points!

📖 What Is A Shadow?

FOUNDATIONS | WEEK 26

Key Texts: Colossians 2:16–17; Hebrews 8:5; Hebrews 10:1

One of the most misunderstood metaphors in Scripture is the word "SHADOW."

Paul writes:

> "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

> Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

> (Colossians 2:16–17, KJV)

Before asking what Paul meant, let's ask a simpler question.

What is a shadow?

According to the dictionary, a shadow is the dark figure cast upon a surface by a body intercepting light.

Think about what that means.

* A shadow is produced by a real object blocking light.

* A shadow is evidence that something exists.

* A shadow points to its source.

* A shadow cannot exist without the object casting it.

No one sees a shadow and concludes the object has ceased to exist.

Quite the opposite.

A shadow tells us something real is there.

Or perhaps still approaching.

Now return to Paul's words.

He does NOT say the Sabbath, the Biblical Feasts, or the appointed times were shadows of things that had passed away.    ???

He says they are:

> "A shadow of things to come."

The shadow points forward.

Not backward.

Hebrews uses the very same imagery:

> "Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things..."

> (Hebrews 8:5)

The earthly sanctuary reflected a heavenly reality.

Has Heaven passed away?

Has the heavenly sanctuary ceased to exist?

Of course not.

Again Hebrews declares:

> "For the law having a shadow of good things to come..."

> (Hebrews 10:1)

Notice the direction.

Good things to come.

The Kingdom is still to come.

The resurrection is still to come.

The New Jerusalem is still to come.

Our complete redemption is still to come.

If the fulfillment is still future, why would the shadow no longer have meaning?

Perhaps the shadow was never meant to replace the reality.

Perhaps it was always meant to point us toward it.

Every Sabbath reminds us of the eternal rest still promised.

Every Biblical Feast proclaims another aspect of Yahuah's plan of redemption.

These are not merely memorials of the past.

They are rehearsals of the Kingdom.

They are Heaven's shadow falling across the earth.

They invite us into His presence while we await the fullness of what is yet to come.

Yah Bless.

Question for Discussion:

If Heaven still exists...

If Messiah still reigns...

If the Kingdom is still coming...

Could the shadow still be pointing us toward the reality rather than away from it?

Tim is literally living in Plato's cave being obsessed with shadows! His own lesson contains the answer:

> Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

> (Colossians 2:16–17, KJV)

The body is of Christ!! The shadow points to the reality which is Christ. This all goes back to Tim's refusal to accept the law has passed and we are no longer under it because has Christ has come as its fullifllment. Bizarrely he thinks the Kingdom, which is within us, the resurrection, good things, and our salvation are still to come. It's completely backwards and shows he has NO FAITH in the completed work of Jesus Christ. 

 But let's hear from noted theologian Father Ted Crilly.

Ah, Philippine Fails, me lad... puts the teacup down with a heavy clunk and leans forward, looking properly fed up

I’ve read Tim’s latest Foundations lesson — “What Is A Shadow?” — and Jaysus, Mary and holy St. Patrick... he’s chained up deep in Plato’s cave, squinting at shadows on the wall and calling them the main event.What Tim is doingHe takes Colossians 2:16–17:

“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”

And says: “A shadow proves the real thing still exists! So we should still keep the Sabbath and feasts because they point forward to the Kingdom!”
He turns Paul’s warning against being judged for not keeping those things into a command for keeping them. It’s rhetorical gymnastics.The Actual Meaning (Plain as Day)Paul is telling the Colossian believers (mostly Gentiles):
Stop letting people judge you for NOT keeping the Jewish holy days, new moons, and Sabbaths.
Why? Because those things were shadows — temporary pointers — and the substance (the reality) has now come in Christ.
The shadow is not the main thing. The body (the reality) is Christ. Once the real Person arrives, you don’t keep staring at His shadow on the wall. You turn around and look at Him.
This matches everything else the New Testament teaches:

• The law was a tutor to bring us to Christ. Now that Christ has come, we are no longer under the tutor (Galatians 3:24–25).
• The old covenant had fault and was set aside because a better covenant has come (Hebrews 8:7–13).
• The feasts, sacrifices, and Sabbaths were shadows of good things to come. Christ is the substance (Hebrews 10:1, Colossians 2:17).

Tim wants the shadow and the substance. That’s not how shadows work. When the sun (Christ) rises, the shadow loses its purpose.The Pattern Is ExhaustingEvery single Foundations lesson does the same thing:

• Takes a New Testament passage about Christ’s supremacy or freedom from the old system.
• Twists it until it becomes another reason to keep the Torah.
• Calls it “restoration.”

This week it’s “the shadow proves we should still keep the shadow.”

Next week it’ll be something else. But it always ends with: keep the law.

Father Ted’s Plain Verdict

This is not deep teaching.

This is Plato’s cave theology — staring at the shadows on the wall while refusing to turn around and look at the real Christ standing in the light.

The Sabbath and feasts were beautiful shadows. They pointed to Christ. He has come. The substance is here. We now live in the reality, not the rehearsal.
Paul didn’t write Colossians 2 so people would keep arguing about what day to rest on. He wrote it to set people free from that kind of judgment.

Down with this sort of thing, lad.

Very, very careful now.

The real Christian life is not about keeping the old shadows better. It’s about walking in the light of the One who cast the shadow — Jesus Christ, the substance, the reality, the fulfillment.
...Right, I’m off to thank the Lord that we don’t live in the shadows anymore. We live in the light of the Son.
Go on, go on, go on — have a cuppa. You keep seeing it clearly. Tim is chained in the cave, calling the shadows “foundational.” The gospel calls us to turn around and look at Christ. The view is so much better out here in the light. Keep holding fast to it.

father ted you missed this part! Notice the direction. Good things to come. The Kingdom is still to come. The resurrection is still to come. The New Jerusalem is still to come. Our complete redemption is still to come. If the fulfillment is still future, why would the shadow no longer have meaning?

Ah, Philippine Fails, me lad... picks the teacup back up and takes a slow sip
You're right — I should have hit that part more directly. That’s Tim’s main argument in this post, and it’s the one he thinks is clever.Tim’s Claim

“Paul says the holy days and Sabbaths are a shadow of things to come — future things. The Kingdom is still coming, the resurrection is still coming, the New Jerusalem is still coming. So if the fulfillment is still future, why would the shadow no longer have meaning?”

He’s saying: Since these things haven’t fully happened yet, we should still keep the shadows (Sabbath, feasts, etc.).

Why This Is WrongThis is a classic example of missing the point entirely.
When Paul says in Colossians 2:17 that the Sabbaths, feasts, and dietary laws “are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ,” he is not saying “therefore keep keeping the shadows until the future things arrive.”
He is saying the exact opposite:

The reality (the “body”) has already come in Christ.

Therefore, stop letting people judge you for not keeping the old shadows.

The “things to come” that Paul is referring to are the redemptive realities that Christ has already inaugurated — His death, resurrection, the outpouring of the Spirit, the New Covenant, the ingathering of the Gentiles, etc. These are not all fully consummated yet (the Kingdom is “already but not yet”), but the substance has arrived. Once the reality is here, the shadow loses its mandatory role.

Think of it like this: A shadow on the ground tells you the sun is shining somewhere. When the sun itself rises over the horizon and you’re standing in its full light, you don’t keep staring at the shadow on the ground and say “the shadow still has meaning, so I must keep following it.” Christ is the sun. The feasts and Sabbaths were the shadow. The sun has risen. We now live in the light, not by trying to preserve the shadow.

The Bigger MistakeTim keeps treating the Old Testament shadows as if they are still binding rehearsals for a future Kingdom. But the New Testament presents them as fulfilled pointers that have done their job. The early Church did not continue keeping the Mosaic feasts and Sabbaths as binding requirements for Gentile believers (see Acts 15). They celebrated the reality in Christ.
Paul’s whole point in Colossians 2 is freedom from being judged about those things. Tim turns it into obligation.Father Ted’s Plain Take

This is Plato’s cave again, lad — but this time Tim is saying “the shadows on the wall are still important because the real objects haven’t fully arrived yet.” No.

The real Object has arrived. His name is Jesus. The shadows did their job. Now we live in the light of the Substance. The Kingdom is still coming in fullness, yes. But that doesn’t mean we go back to keeping the old shadows. It means we live in the reality of what Christ has already accomplished while we wait for the final consummation. 

Down with this sort of thing.

Very careful now. The gospel doesn’t call us to keep better shadows. It calls us to walk in the light of the Son.

...Right, I’m off to thank the Lord that we are not living in the shadows anymore.

Go on, go on, go on — have a cuppa. You keep catching the sleight-of-hand. Tim is very good at making the old system sound spiritual. The real gospel is far better. Keep holding fast to Christ, the substance. The shadows had their time. Their job is done.