VP Duterte: Day 4 of trial exposed weak impeachment case



The Senate impeachment court's jurisdiction over the trial of Vice President Sara Duterte now stands on firmer legal…

The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte has exposed weaknesses in the government’s rules on confidential…

Vice President Sara Duterte on Thursday said mounting pressure by the United States on the International Criminal Court…

The true measure of political maturity is not how a nation celebrates victory but how it accepts defeat.

Duterte said Teodoro’s remarks could unfairly cast suspicion on officials who were never identified.
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.