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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment