VICE President Sara Duterte arrived at the Senate on Tuesday, 7 July, along with one of her lawyers Atty. Michael Poa prior to the second day of the impeachment trial against her.
Aram Lascano
Lawyers for Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte said on Wednesday that House prosecutors had failed to prove she hired an assassin to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., arguing that the prosecution itself had acknowledged there was no direct evidence to support one of the central allegations in her impeachment trial.
In a closing argument after the third day of proceedings before the Senate impeachment court, defense lawyer Mark Vinluan said prosecutors had relied almost entirely on Duterte's controversial 23 November 2024 press conference, but had failed to establish that she actually contracted anyone to carry out the killings.
"The prosecution admitted that the video does not prove any fact other than its existence. In simple words, there is no proof of any contracting of an assassin," Vinluan told the impeachment court.
Senator-judge Risa Hontiveros earlier observed during the proceedings that none of Duterte's statements in the press conference, by themselves, proved that she had actually hired an assassin.
House prosecutors replied that while the video might not "100 percent prove" such a contract existed, it formed part of the body of evidence supporting the impeachment charge.
During the infamous live press briefing, Duterte declared that she had instructed someone to kill Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and then-Speaker Martin Romualdez if she herself were killed.
The remarks prompted an investigation by the National Bureau of Investigation, which recommended criminal complaints for grave threats and incitement to sedition. The House later cited the incident as one of the factual bases for her impeachment.
Prosecutors on Tuesday presented NBI Senior Agent John Mark Calilung to testify on the bureau’s investigation into Duterte’s remarks.
Under cross-examination the next day, the defense challenged the foundation of the probe, arguing that the NBI had established only that Duterte made the statement—not that she had taken steps to carry out an assassination plot.
"The prosecution has no other competent evidence to prove that VP Sara contracted an assassin. Ang testimony ni Calilung, gaya ng iba pang ebidensya ng prosecution, ay hindi sapat para patunayan ang paratang na ito," Vinluan said.
The defense instead portrayed Duterte’s remarks as a reaction to what it described as escalating threats against her family after her political break with Marcos.
Duterte and the incumbent President ran together under the UniTeam banner in 2022, but their partnership collapsed two years later.
Duterte resigned as education secretary in June 2024 amid growing tensions with the administration, including congressional scrutiny of confidential funds allocated to her office. The split later turned into an open political feud, with Duterte criticizing Marcos and his allies while lawmakers investigated her office.
Vinluan argued that Duterte’s remarks could not be separated from that fallout, claiming she had been subjected to surveillance and security threats after leaving the administration.
He cited the defense’s claim that Duterte’s residences in Davao and Manila were profiled, her security arrangements were compromised and her official movements were leaked.
The lawyer also revived the defense’s reference to an alleged "Operation Romanov," which he described as a plot against Duterte and her family.
He cited NBI interview records that he said contained references to discussions about the alleged operation before the November 2024 press conference.
"When VP Sara uttered those words, she was not responding as Sara Duterte, the Vice President, but Sara Duterte, the wife, mother, daughter and sister who only sought to protect her own and her family members' lives," Vinluan said.
The alleged "Operation Romanov" has not been independently verified by authorities or established in the impeachment proceedings.
Prosecutors have argued that the impeachment case does not require proof that an assassination was actually planned or carried out. Instead, they have said the issue is whether Duterte’s public declaration that she had ordered killings against the country’s top officials constituted a violation of the constitutional standards expected of a vice president.
After Duterte’s remarks, Malacañang treated the statement as a serious security threat against Marcos and increased security measures around the President. Duterte has maintained that her statement was conditional and made in response to threats she believed were directed at her and her family.
Vinluan further argued that allegations of grave threats and inciting to sedition are ordinary criminal offenses under the Revised Penal Code and do not qualify as "other high crimes" that may justify impeachment.
"There was no betrayal of public trust," he said. "She actually upheld the people's trust as she spoke for and on behalf of the people."
The prosecution, however, has maintained that Duterte’s remarks form part of a broader pattern of alleged misconduct cited in the Articles of Impeachment, including accusations involving confidential funds and abuse of office.
Singapore penalizes bad public behavior. Transport authorities in the island state announced last month that public bus…
Authorities arrested 244 foreign nationals, mostly Chinese, during simultaneous operations against suspected illegal…
The Senate impeachment court’s decision to deny former Senator Antonio Trillanes a subpoena was a consensus reached by…
