Sara’s QC case won’t sway Senate, says Win

“In my opinion, that has no effect on the impeachment court, because a regular court is different from an impeachment proceeding. The court has determined that there is probable cause, and a hearing will take place,” Gatchalian said in a radio interview.

“The same applies to the impeachment court. The defense will still present its case and we will examine it, and from there, a decision will be reached. So the proceedings are different,” he added.

Impeachment court spokesperson Reginald Tongol likewise said the criminal case and impeachment proceedings are separate, emphasizing that double jeopardy does not apply because impeachment is not a criminal proceeding.

‘Sui generis’

“The impeachment court is a sui generis (unique) constitutional tribunal with the supreme mandate to determine political accountability and fitness for office, not penal liability,” Tongol said.

Citing the 1987 Constitution and the Supreme Court ruling in Estrada v. Desierto, Tongol said criminal prosecution may proceed independently of impeachment.

“Therefore, the issuance of a warrant and posting of bail at the regular courts for grave threats have absolutely zero legal implication on the ongoing impeachment trial. They do not legally alter, pause, or dictate the impeachment court’s timeline,” he said.

Reports have it that the Duterte camp is set to challenge the QC case before the Supreme Court this week.

The warrant was issued less than a month after the Department of Justice (DoJ) filed grave-threat charges against Duterte before the Quezon City RTC over her 23 November 2024, statement that she has contracted someone to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez if she herself is assassinated.

Timing beyond control

Duterte has said her remarks were “maliciously taken out of logical context.” She posted P360,000 bail Saturday, or P120,000 for each of the three charges, and remains free while the criminal case proceeds.

The grave-threat allegations also form part of Article 4 of the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte, which cites her November 2024 statements involving Marcos and his family.

Gatchalian said the timing of the criminal case was beyond the impeachment court’s control, despite concerns raised by Sen. Bong Go, a staunch Duterte ally, over the issuance of the warrant nearly two years after the alleged threats.

“There are simultaneous investigations taking place, so we cannot control how things will proceed in the other agencies,” Gatchalian said.

The prosecution concluded its presentation of evidence on the grave-threat allegations on 22 July, but the impeachment trial remains ongoing.

Contract killer

The DoJ has likewise maintained that the impeachment proceedings do not prevent a parallel criminal case because the two proceedings have different purposes.

The grave-threat case originated from an NBI investigation in November 2024. The DoJ later dropped an accompanying inciting-to-sedition complaint for lack of sufficient evidence but pursued the grave-threat allegations.

NBI director Melvin Matibag ordered the investigation reopened in April after President Marcos appointed him bureau chief in February.

Matibag had earlier told the impeachment court that the NBI considered Duterte’s alleged threat “serious, active, and continuing” and had formed a special task force to pursue the case.

He also said the NBI had obtained leads that could help identify the alleged gunman Duterte was accused of hiring, but declined to disclose the identity of persons of interest.

Meanwhile, Rep. Leila de Lima said Duterte cannot claim to be a victim in her grave-threat case.

“VP Sara may not be used to being held accountable, but now she must answer the accusations against her in a criminal court,” De Lima said.

“This shouldn’t have taken a long time, but at least, it’s finally happening.”