Lawyers for Vice President Sara Duterte said Wednesday that House prosecutors failed to prove she had hired an assassin to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., arguing that the impeachment case rests on Duterte’s controversial 23 November 2024 press conference and not on direct evidence of a murder plot.

In a closing argument after the third day of proceedings before the Senate impeachment court, defense lawyer Mark Vinluan said the prosecutors had relied heavily on Duterte’s public remarks but 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 court.

Senator-judge Risa Hontiveros earlier noted during the proceedings that the statements Duterte made in the press conference, by themselves, did not prove that she had hired an assassin.

The 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.

In the video recorded live, Duterte said she had instructed someone to kill Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and then Speaker Martin Romualdez if she were killed.

The remarks prompted an investigation by the National Bureau of Investigation, which later recommended criminal complaints for grave threats and incitement to sedition. The House cited the incident as one of the factual bases for her impeachment.

The private prosecutors on Tuesday presented NBI Senior Agent John Mark Calilung to testify on the bureau’s investigation into Duterte’s remarks.

Under cross-examination on Wednesday, 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.

Vinluan said the prosecution had no other competent evidence to prove that Duterte contracted an assassin, adding that Calilung’s testimony and the rest of the prosecution’s evidence were insufficient to support that allegation.

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 Marcos ran together as the UniTeam in 2022, but their partnership collapsed two years later. Duterte resigned as education secretary in June 2024 amid tensions with the administration, including a congressional scrutiny into confidential funds allocated to her office. The split later turned into an open political feud.

Vinluan argued that Duterte’s remarks could not be separated from that falling out, claiming the Vice President 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 had been profiled, her security arrangements compromised, and details of her official movements leaked.

He also revived the defense’s reference to an alleged “Operation Romanov,” which he described as a plot against Duterte and her family, citing NBI interview records that he said contained references to discussions about the alleged operation before the November 2024 online press conference where Duterte made the threats.

“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 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, meanwhile, argued that the case does not require proof that an assassination was actually planned or carried out. Instead, they 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 made the 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, maintained that Duterte’s remarks formed part of a broader pattern of alleged misconduct cited in the Articles of Impeachment, including accusations involving confidential funds and abuse of office.