Daily TribuneThe prosecution’s presentation of National Bureau of Investigation officials and authenticated video evidence is intended to lay the factual foundation for the fourth article of impeachment, which accuses Duterte of issuing grave threats.
The effort to establish the authenticity of Vice President Sara Duterte’s alleged threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former Speaker Martin Romualdez is proving to be an ordeal for the prosecution panel.
Yet, it is a necessary legal step as the Senate impeachment court will ultimately decide whether the statements amount to an impeachable offense, according to former University of the East College of Law dean Amado Valdez.
According to the legal expert, the prosecution’s presentation of National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) officials and authenticated video evidence is intended to lay the factual foundation for the fourth article of impeachment which accuses Duterte of issuing grave threats.
The crux of the allegations is determining whether the statements she made constitute a “betrayal of public trust” or another offense that can be settled solely by the impeachment court.
According to Valdez, “technically, the prosecution can say ‘we accept your defense. Let the impeachment court decide whether these acts constitute a betrayal of public trust.”
The fourth article of impeachment stems from VP Duterte’s public remarks in November 2024 where she said she had instructed someone to assassinate the President, the First Lady and the Speaker if she herself were killed.
The prosecution argued the statements constituted grave threats and demonstrated conduct incompatible with holding public office, but the defense described it as conditional and delivered in a fit of rage.
The defense has argued that Duterte’s remarks were made in the context of alleged threats against her and her chief of staff, lawyer Zuleika Lopez, and should not be viewed in isolation.
In Valdez’s view, while the surrounding circumstances may provide context, they do not necessarily outweigh the legal implications of the statements themselves.
“When you balance the positive and the negative, I think the negative will be greater,” he said.
“But if that is the only defense available on this particular issue, then it could be convenient and acceptable at the moment,” he added.
He raised the lèse-majesté laws in constitutional monarchies, noting that cases involving threats against high-ranking state officials raise broader questions of public trust and constitutional responsibility.
Lèse-majesté — or the defamation of a ruling head of state, a monarch, or the state itself — is a legal offense. Stemming from the Latin “laesa majestas” (injured majesty), it is historically classified as treason.
“The subject of the impeachment charge involves persons occupying the highest offices of government,” he said, adding that the Senate, acting as an impeachment court, must determine whether such conduct constitutes an impeachable offense.
Valdez also explained the legal strategy behind the defense’s extensive cross-examination of NBI officials.
Rather than disputing the existence of the video itself, the defense sought to cast doubt on the impartiality and completeness of the NBI investigation.
He noted that defense lawyers questioned why investigators focused primarily on Duterte’s statements without thoroughly investigating her claim that she and Lopez were facing threats under what has been referred to during the proceedings as “Operation Romanov.”
The defense likewise challenged the timing of the NBI investigation, suggesting it coincided with the filing of the impeachment complaint and thus sought to attack the credibility of the investigation rather than the video’s authenticity.
“The defense was zeroing in on the inconsistencies in the dates, certifications, and some of the affidavits,” he pointed out.
He said that once the defense has established its point, further questioning may allow prosecution witnesses to recover and reinforce their earlier testimony.
The prosecution has said it is prepared to drop some witnesses to speed up the proceedings.
Valdez believes this could strengthen rather than weaken its case.
He said the prosecutors may have obtained useful admissions from the defense cross-examinations that make additional witnesses unnecessary.
“They can collate the facts generated during the cross-examinations by the defense counsel,” he said, adding that trimming repetitive testimony could make the prosecution’s presentation more focused.
Valdez observed that much of the impeachment trial has been dominated by procedural and evidentiary issues that may be difficult for the public to follow.
He said non-lawyers often expect dramatic courtroom exchanges, but impeachment proceedings are largely governed by legal technicalities rather than emotional arguments.
“Non-lawyers are confused because the proceedings are anti-climactic,” he said. “People judge it based on who speaks louder or more eloquently, but that is not the real substance or merit of the case.”
Despite the highly technical nature of the trial, Valdez emphasized that impeachment remains both a legal and political process.
He said public opinion could eventually influence the senator-judges who must vote on whether to convict or acquit Duterte.
The bottom line is that if the senator-judges believe the public favors a conviction, it could affect how they would vote, given the trial’s political nature.
