VP Duterte: Day 4 of trial exposed weak impeachment case



The Office of the Vice President (OVP) on Monday disputed the prosecution’s claim that it spent its P125-million…

Put more plainly, only around one in 10 Filipinos was paying close attention. Nearly one in three was barely aware that…

The Palace calls this a compliance with a legal obligation. It is worth noting that the obligation became easier to…

Malacañang on Monday criticized Davao City Rep. Paolo "Pulong" Duterte over his remarks questioning Defense…

A state auditor testifying on the confidential funds told the Senate impeachment court on Monday that it was only under…
Vice President Sara Duterte said on Tuesday that the fourth day of her Senate impeachment trial reinforced her claim that the case against her was unsupported by evidence, after proceedings focused on allegations that she threatened the lives of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and other senior officials.
In a statement, Duterte rejected the prosecution's presentation, accusing it of building its case on fabricated claims rather than proof.
"The country witnessed what I have been saying all along: the complaint is not supported by evidence," she said.
“Repeatedly claiming that there were threats when none existed, inventing an assassin where there was none, and fabricating evidence to support those claims does not transform fiction into fact," Duterte added.
She argued that such actions undermine public institutions, erode public trust, waste public resources and "corrupt the search for truth."
National Bureau of Investigation official Jeremy Lotoc testified on Monday before the Senate impeachment court as a prosecution witness on the article accusing Duterte of grave threats.
Lotoc said investigators concluded Duterte's November 2024 remarks against Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez were "serious" and warranted criminal charges.
During cross-examination, however, the defense pressed Lotoc on the absence of any validated information identifying an alleged hired assassin, arguing that investigators had no evidence showing anyone had actually been contracted. The prosecution countered that the alleged offense of grave threats did not depend on proving the existence of a hired killer.