The legal counsel of Vice President Sara Duterte has criticized the House Committee on Justice’s presentation of evidence in connection with allegations of inciting to sedition and grave threats, saying the proceedings relied on “curated” and “spliced” materials and fell short of establishing probable cause.

In a statement, Atty. Paul Lawrence Lim said the materials presented during the committee hearing “publicly reveals the paucity of the charges” against the Vice President.

“Evidence is curated, even spliced. Context is ignored. Opinion is substituted for facts. Guesswork is presented as investigation results,” Lim said in the statement. 

“These cannot be the foundation for probable cause, much less a prima facie case with reasonable certainty of conviction,” he added.

The committee’s proceedings on Wednesday included testimony from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), which earlier said it found basis to file complaints for inciting to sedition and grave threats over Duterte’s public remarks in November 2024. 

According to the NBI, a video of the Vice President’s press conference included statements interpreted as threats against the President and his family, which investigators said could not be dismissed as mere metaphor.

Those allegations have been incorporated into broader congressional deliberations that resulted in the House justice panel’s unanimous finding of probable cause to advance impeachment complaints to plenary deliberation.

Lawmakers cited earlier hearings involving testimony on alleged confidential fund disbursements, bank transactions flagged for suspicious activity, and statements linking the Vice President to possible political destabilization efforts. 

Lim, however, rejected the evidentiary basis of the proceedings and questioned attempts to establish a connection between Duterte and the alleged statements under review.

“If there is anything that was proved by yesterday’s proceedings, it is to confirm that it is and has always been a fishing expedition aimed at giving a semblance of substance to the defective impeachment complaints,” Lim said.

But committee members have maintained that the proceedings are part of their constitutional duty to determine sufficiency of evidence in impeachment complaints, which may later proceed to trial in the Senate if approved by the House plenary on 4 May.

“With the committee hearings finished, the issue of the alleged commission of crimes will be addressed at the proper fora, where evidence is expected to support judgment, and the rule of law is expected to be respected,” he added.