A spokesperson for the House prosecution panel on Saturday rejected Vice President Sara Duterte's invocation of free speech as a defense against one of the most serious allegations in her impeachment case, arguing that constitutional rights cannot be used to justify statements that allegedly threatened the lives of the country's highest officials.

Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong said Duterte's legal team anchored much of its defense on procedural objections, including the claim that her controversial remarks against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. were protected speech, rather than directly addressing the allegations contained in the Articles of Impeachment.

Speaking at the Saturday News Forum in Quezon City, Adiong stressed that freedom of expression, while guaranteed under the Constitution, is not absolute.

“All lawyers would agree that there's no such thing as absolute freedom. All freedoms are also subject to some regulation,” he said.

“One cannot go around the streets accusing anybody of something without the necessary consequence of that action, either verbally or acted upon,” he added.

In her 51-page answer before the Senate impeachment court, Duterte sought the dismissal of the impeachment complaint, arguing that her statements against Marcos were protected by the constitutional guarantee of free speech.

Under the fourth Article of Impeachment, prosecutors alleged that Duterte contracted an assassin to kill President Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and then-House Speaker Martin Romualdez should an alleged plot against her life push through.

Adiong said the Senate should assess not only Duterte's statements but also their impact on the individuals allegedly threatened.

“It's not actually her utterance that should be focused on. It's the effect of that utterance on the person that is being threatened,” he said.

He also pointed out that Duterte herself emphasized the seriousness of her remarks.

“Siya mismo ang nagsabi, ‘no joke, no joke,’” Adiong said.

The lawmaker said it would ultimately be up to the 24 senator-judges to determine whether the statements constitute betrayal of public trust or high crimes, both of which are impeachable offenses under the Constitution.

“That's why we have forwarded this to the Senate, so that the Senate, acting as an impeachment court, can actually and finally settle whether our allegation indeed constitutes betrayal of public trust [and] high crimes,” he said.

Adiong also stressed that elected officials carry greater responsibility in choosing their words because of the influence they wield, warning against treating threats from public officials as ordinary political speech.

Beyond disputing Duterte's free speech argument, Adiong questioned the overall direction of the vice president's legal defense.

He said prosecutors expected Duterte's answer to directly challenge the allegations with evidence but instead found that it largely relied on constitutional and procedural objections aimed at invalidating the impeachment process.

Adiong said prosecutors hope Duterte's camp will present specific evidence in its pretrial brief before the Senate impeachment court.

“We expect that in the pretrial brief, they can actually provide particular, specific evidence, counter-evidence, to at least challenge the accusations,” he said.

The Articles of Impeachment accuse Duterte of, among others, the alleged misuse of confidential funds, unexplained wealth, bribery involving Department of Education officials, and alleged assassination threats against President Marcos, the First Lady, and Romualdez.

Duterte has denied the allegations and is seeking the dismissal of the impeachment case before trial.