Is the House prosecution already acknowledging that it may not be able to prove Vice President Inday Sara Duterte’s guilt beyond the standards expected in an ordinary court case?

That question emerged on Tuesday after House public prosecutor Rep. Joel Chua argued that an impeachment trial does not require the same level of proof as a criminal prosecution because its purpose is to determine whether a public official remains fit to hold office.

Speaking in an online interview, Chua stressed that impeachment is governed by constitutional standards rather than criminal rules of evidence.

“An impeachment and criminal case are viewed differently. On one end, you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they themselves uttered the threat. But here in an impeachment, it has different and more lenient parameters,” he said.

His remarks came Tuesday as the defense continued, on Day 5 of the trial, its cross examination of National Bureau of Investigation official Jeremy Lotoc, who headed the investigation on the accusation that Duterte threatened to have the President, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez killed if she herself is killed.

The prosecution has encountered repeated attacks from the defense over inconsistencies in the NBI’s documentary evidence, including typographical errors, conflicting dates and the bureau’s admission that it has yet to identify the alleged hitman Duterte claimed she had contracted.

‘Betrayal’ of public trust

Against that backdrop, Chua maintained that impeachment is not about proving criminal liability but determining whether the Vice President violated the public trust expected of the nation’s second-highest official.

He cited Article VII, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution, which requires the President and Vice President to preserve and defend the Constitution, faithfully execute the laws and dedicate themselves to serving the nation.

“What she did was a clear betrayal of public trust. To think that you would threaten the head of the state. The head of the state represents the country. They are the face of the country. Could you imagine the second highest ranking official of our country threatening the commander-in-chief of our army?” Chua said.

The Manila lawmaker also argued that the defense has largely focused on technical defects in the investigation instead of disputing the substance of Duterte’s statements.

“Based on what I’ve seen, the video was clear, the threat was in the video. The findings were on record. What was the answer of the defense? The dates are wrong, there are typo errors... we’ve had multiple hearings, we’ve had multiple trials, they never denied the threat,” he said.

Chua said impeachment should ultimately examine whether Duterte’s conduct meets the standards required of a constitutional officer rather than whether prosecutors can secure a criminal conviction.

Different standard

He cited former Supreme Court Associate Justice Isagani Cruz’s description of impeachment as “a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men.”

“The parameter of conduct is looked at differently when it comes to these two. Because these two represent the country. They become the image of the country. So could you imagine if a President was violent, how will our countrymen view us, the people outside of our country?” he said.

Aside from Article IV, Duterte also faces impeachment charges over the alleged misuse of confidential funds, unexplained wealth and alleged bribery involving officials of the Department of Education.