House public prosecutor Rep. Joel Chua said that an impeachment trial did not necessarily need hard evidence to convict a public official, noting that the process was merely a test to examine whether an individual remained fit for their post.

Chua mentioned that impeachment cases were more lenient on their approach, with the judgement on the matter resting on the existing laws put forth that establish the role of all officials–particularly the President and the Vice President.

“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 during an online interview on Tuesday, 14 July.

A specific regulation that the lawmaker cited was Article 7, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution wherein the two highest ranking officials in the country are expected to “preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation.”

For Chua, the verbal threats uttered by Vice President Sara Duterte against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., first lady Liza Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez was an action that clearly betrayed the trust of the people that elected her into office.

“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?” he posited.

Threats were clear

Adding on to his point, the representative of the third congressional district of Manila questioned the tactics of the defense counsel of Duterte, asserting that their counter-arguments did not necessarily deny that the threats were real.

Chua said that the defense simply pointed out technical errors in the investigation conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) rather than defending the Vice President when it came to the findings of the bureau.

“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.

The lawmaker further stressed that the purpose of the impeachment was to obstruct the possible precedent that would allow Duterte to blurt out threats against people or even nations that oppose her, given that the latter had already expressed her interest in running for the executive seat.

Chua reiterated that the process of impeachment was as former Supreme Court Associate Justice Isagani Cruz said “a method of national inquest unto the conduct of public men,” stressing that the attitude of individuals were tested as it relates to their position in public office.

He noted that the Constitution had allowed for elected officials such as the President and the Vice President to undergo the process of impeachment as they were, as he established, the representation of the country.

“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 explained.

Notably, aside from the Article of Impeachment on grave threats, Duterte was also said to have conducted impeachable offenses through her alleged misuse of confidential funds, her unexplained wealth, and her bribery of officials from the Department of Education (DepEd).