DEFENSE TURNS PALACE DENIAL AGAINST NBI
‘From the perspective of law enforcement, the situation would become chaotic. It was a matter of national security.’
Text size
‘From the perspective of law enforcement, the situation would become chaotic. It was a matter of national security.’
Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense on Tuesday invoked the Marcos administration’s own public denials of any destabilization plot while attacking the National Bureau of Investigation’s (NBI) investigative methods, seeking to weaken the prosecution’s claim that her controversial 2024 remarks constituted a credible threat under Article 4 of the impeachment complaint.
During the fifth day of Duterte’s impeachment trial, defense lawyer Mark Vinluan confronted NBI Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc, who headed the bureau’s November 2024 investigation, with June 2026 news reports quoting Palace Press Officer Claire Castro as saying security agencies had detected no destabilization efforts against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s administration.
The reports stemmed from Malacañang’s response to social media claims that pro-Duterte groups planned to storm the Palace on Independence Day. Castro said intelligence and security agencies found no active plot to destabilize the government, while the Philippine National Police likewise reported receiving no validated intelligence indicating any threat.
Asked whether those statements reflected the government’s official position that no destabilization efforts existed, Lotoc repeatedly answered that he had “no personal knowledge” of the reports.
Vinluan then presented another June 2026 news report carrying the same assertion and asked whether it was “consistent that no destabilization efforts were present against the government.”
House private prosecutor Amando Virgil Ligutan objected, arguing that the reports had not been authenticated and therefore could not be relied upon during cross-examination. The impeachment court, however, allowed the questioning to proceed, noting that the articles had only been pre-marked as defense exhibits and had not yet been formally offered as evidence.
Ligutan nevertheless argued that the reports were published more than a year after Duterte’s 23 November 2024, online broadcast and therefore had no bearing on the issues before the impeachment court.
Defense questions
NBI investigation
Vinluan also scrutinized the NBI’s investigation, particularly the evidence the bureau chose to examine before recommending criminal charges against Duterte.
The defense lawyer played a video in which Duterte appealed for protection for her family after the Philippine National Police withdrew 75 police officers assigned to her security detail in mid-2024. In the video, Duterte said she feared her children and other family members could become targets of physical attacks or online harassment following the withdrawal.
Asked whether the NBI had encountered the video during its open-source investigation, Lotoc acknowledged that investigators did not review it.
Vinluan also highlighted that the bureau never interviewed Duterte before concluding that she acted with criminal intent.
“And despite not having interviewed her, you made findings on her mental state?” Vinluan asked.
Lotoc replied that investigators based their conclusions on Duterte’s public statements and other evidence gathered during the investigation.
The defense further challenged the NBI’s finding that Duterte’s alleged threats were “persistent,” noting that investigators relied not only on her 23 November 2024, livestream but also on statements she made during an 18 October 2024, press conference.
Lotoc testified that investigators viewed the two public appearances together because they reflected a pattern of statements. He cited Duterte’s earlier remark telling someone not to stop “until you kill them” and another statement in which she spoke about imagining herself beheading President Marcos.
Vinluan also confirmed with Lotoc that the bureau’s open-source investigation consisted of reviewing news reports, websites, social media posts, and YouTube videos.
Cayetano questions grave threat
Senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano questioned whether Duterte’s remarks met the legal elements of grave threats, emphasizing that the alleged threat was conditional.
“If they felt threatened, does that mean they believed what Vice President Sara said — that they would be killed? Because they wouldn’t feel threatened if they didn’t think she meant what she said about killing the three of them,” Cayetano said.
He added: “The threat was, ‘If you have me killed, I will have you killed.’ So if they had no intention of killing her, why would they feel threatened? Unless you’re saying you believe they were indeed planning to kill the vice president?”
Lotoc replied that the NBI considered the statements an “event-based threat” from a law enforcement perspective.
“What came to our minds, Your Honor, was the possibility that, God forbid, something could happen to the Vice President without the three officials having anything to do with it. If that happened, the alleged instruction could be triggered, and the three officials could be killed even though they had no involvement,” he said.
Lotoc added that investigators were concerned that Duterte’s supporters or other groups could wrongly blame President Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez if the vice president died from causes unrelated to them.
“God forbid the vice president dies, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the three officials were responsible. She could die for some other reason,” Lotoc said. “The public could still blame the three officials, creating an opportunity for other groups to take advantage.”
He maintained that the NBI found all the elements of the crime of grave threats present and treated the matter as one involving national security.
“From the perspective of law enforcement, the situation would become chaotic. It was a matter of national security,” he said.
Legal basis challenged
In a separate line of questioning, Vinluan disputed the legal foundation of the NBI’s findings, arguing that the Supreme Court decisions cited in Lotoc’s affidavit were factually different from Duterte’s case.
Lotoc acknowledged that the cases — Garma v. People, Reyes v. People and Ruaza v. People — did not involve a sitting public official or statements delivered through a publicly broadcast online address.
Vinluan argued that those rulings involved disputes between private individuals who exchanged direct verbal threats, making them materially different from statements made by a constitutional official during a public briefing.
Lotoc, however, maintained that the NBI relied on the legal principles established by the Supreme Court rather than the factual circumstances of those cases.
“What we cited is the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, and those principles are applicable in this case,” he said.
Under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code, a person commits grave threats by threatening another individual, or that person’s family, with the commission of a crime in a manner intended to intimidate and make the victim believe the threat could be carried out.
