Vice President Sara Duterte's defense on Tuesday invoked the Marcos administration's own public denials of any destabilization plot against the government in an effort to weaken the case that her controversial 2024 remarks constituted a credible threat.

During the impeachment trial, defense lawyer Mark Vinluan confronted National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc, who led the agency's November 2024 investigation into Duterte's remarks, with June 6 news reports quoting Palace Press Officer Claire Castro as saying security agencies had not monitored any destabilization efforts against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.'s administration.

In the article, Malacañang responded to social media claims that pro-Duterte groups were planning to storm the Palace on Independence Day. 

Castro had dismissed speculation of destabilization attempts after Duterte's impeachment gained momentum, saying intelligence and security agencies had reported no active plot to unseat the Marcos administration. 

The Philippine National Police likewise said it had not received validated intelligence pointing to any threat to Independence Day celebrations.

Asked whether those statements reflected the government's position that no destabilization efforts existed, Lotoc repeatedly said he had "no personal knowledge" of the reports.

Vinluan later presented another June 2026 news report and asked whether it was "consistent that no destabilization efforts are present against the government."

House prosecutor Amando Virgil Ligutan objected, arguing the news reports had yet to be authenticated and therefore could not be relied upon during cross-examination.

The impeachment court allowed the questioning to continue, noting that the articles had only been pre-marked as defense exhibits and had not yet been formally admitted into evidence.

Ligutan, however, stressed that one of the reports cited by the defense was published in June 2026—nearly two after Duterte's November 2024 online broadcast—arguing that it postdated the events being examined by the court.

'Inapplicable' grave threats cases

In a separate line of questioning, Vinluan challenged the legal foundation of the NBI's investigation, arguing that the Supreme Court cases cited in investigator Jeremy Lotoc's affidavit bore little resemblance to Vice President Sara Duterte's case.

Under questioning by defense lawyer Mark Vinluan, Lotoc acknowledged that the cases he cited—Garma v. People, Reyes v. People, and Ruaza v. People—did not involve a sitting public official or a video-recorded statement.

All three cases dealt with the crime of grave threats, with the Supreme Court discussing when a threat becomes criminal and whether it was intended to instill fear that it would be carried out.

Vinluan argued, however, that the rulings arose from disputes between private individuals involving direct verbal threats rather than statements made by a constitutional official in a public online broadcast.

Lotoc maintained that while the facts were different, the legal principles laid down in those rulings remained applicable because they define the elements of the offense of grave threats.

"What we cited is the principle laid out by the Supreme Court... and those principles are applicable in this case,” Lotoc said.

Under Philippine law, grave threats, as defined under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code, are committed when a person threatens another, or the latter's family, with the commission of a crime against their person, honor or property in a manner intended to intimidate and make the victim believe the threat could be carried out.###