Grave threat
When I first heard the threat on TV, I was disgusted at the way it was expressed and the language used, especially coming from someone in the second-highest post in the land.
Text size
When I first heard the threat on TV, I was disgusted at the way it was expressed and the language used, especially coming from someone in the second-highest post in the land.
In politics, words can be taken out of context, so it’s important to examine the intent and context behind statements before hastily labeling them as outright lies or threats.
On the fifth day of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte before the Senate on Tuesday, a video was presented showing her remarks about having spoken to someone about assassinating President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez in the event she was killed.
The prosecution’s witness, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) official Jeremy Lotoc, justified the NBI findings that Duterte committed grave threats and inciting to sedition despite investigators’ reports containing typographical errors and inconsistencies that were pointed out by the defense.
When I first heard the threat on TV, I was disgusted at the way it was expressed and the language used, especially coming from someone in the second-highest post in the land.
The legal arguments hadn’t been presented yet, so I found this behavior inappropriate.
But after listening to the legal debates over the statement in question — such as how it is perceived within the broader context of political rhetoric in the Philippines, a country renowned for its heated political discourse — I started to reassess my stance.
Resorting to hyperbole and exaggeration, especially during intense discussions or in response to perceived insults, is common among politicians. The significance of what is said, whether in jest, as a metaphor, or as a genuine threat, largely depends on how the listener interprets it. The truth resides in the mind of the person who expresses it.
I want to believe that Sara Duterte’s comments were uttered in frustration rather than to incite violence, as no incidents have occurred since they were initially made. The threat was conditional; it would happen only if she were killed first.
The words were shocking as they came from a woman and they were delivered with such ferocity and language typically associated with a spiteful man. However, there was no pretense in the message; the choice of words and the manner in which she expressed them were distinctly her own.
The NBI witness admitted to having no personal knowledge of the alleged plot to kill the Vice President, the reason why she made the threat in the first place, or whether Sara Duterte had actually hired someone to kill the President or any other intended targets. I’m surprised that the NBI did not investigate this further.
The Marcos and Duterte families have been central figures in political discussions for many years. The issues at hand often prompt bold statements that shouldn’t always be taken literally.
Sara Duterte’s comments may have triggered her impeachment and her ongoing trial before the Senate impeachment court. But she has emphasized her commitment to public order and respect for the law which, to me, somehow mitigates the severity of her threats.
As for the other allegations in the Articles of Impeachment, I remain open-minded and will eagerly listen to the oral arguments.
