Duterte impeachment trial hits dispute over threats

A major point of contention emerged on Day 2 of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial after Sen. Risa Hontiveros questioned why video statements attributed to Duterte should be considered impeachable if they did not prove she actually hired or contracted an assassin.

The exchange came during the prosecution’s presentation of Article IV of the Articles of Impeachment, which involves Duterte’s alleged threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Marcos and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.

“Sa prosecution naman po, yung isang tanong ko at this point in time, Mr. Presiding Officer. Well, counsel, none of these statements are proof that the Vice President actually contracted an assassin or hired one. Why are these acts impeachable?” Hontiveros asked.

Prosecution counsel Virgilio Ligutan said the prosecution was seeking to establish that Duterte should be removed from office over the alleged act.

“Yes. There is an answer to the question, Your Honor, please. The prosecution is in the process of establishing that the Vice President should be impeached and he or she is impeached and be removed from office for contracting an assassin to kill the President, Your Honor, please,” Ligutan said.

Ligutan acknowledged that the statements may not fully prove the alleged contracting of an assassin, but argued that they may establish intent.

“In as much as we understand that these statements may not actually 100% prove that she in fact contracted an assassin to kill the President, Your Honor, please, we are invoking, Your Honor, please, a rule in the rules of evidence that there could be statements, utterances of a person that may not be directly similar to what he or she did, but it could establish, Your Honor, please, what we call a specific intent, knowledge, identity, plan, system, and the like,” Ligutan said.

Ligutan cited the statements allegedly made on Nov. 23, 2024, as part of what prosecutors described as a series of remarks by Duterte.

“Ibig sabihin po, pinapakita ng prosecution na yung mga nasabi ng Vice President sa gabing iyon, November 23, 2024, hindi po ’yan nag-iisang statement ng Vice President. Kung hindi, ’yun po yung culmination sa mga series of statements ng Vice President, kung saan sinasabi niya talagang gusto niyang patayin yung Presidente, yung First Lady, tsaka yung former Speaker of the House,” he said.

Ligutan invoked Rule 130, Section 35 of the Rules of Court, saying the statements were being offered to show plan, system, knowledge and intent.

“Itong mga statements na ’to, they prove one thing: talagang may plano na, talagang may system na, talagang may knowledge na yung Vice President sa anong gusto niyang gawin sa Pangulo. Gusto niyang pugutan ng ulo, gusto niyang patayin no less than the President of the Republic of the Philippines, Your Honor, please,” he said.

Hontiveros then clarified whether the issue before the court was criminal liability or whether the alleged conduct was appropriate for the vice presidency.

“At anong– ang tanong po ba dito ay kung may krimen o kung may… kung ang asal ay karapat-dapat sa Vice Presidente,” she asked.

Ligutan said the prosecution could address both questions, citing betrayal of public trust and an alleged constitutional violation.

“We are able to answer two questions, Your Honor, please. The charges against the Vice President ay yung pagbibetray ng public trust, Your Honor, please. That is also, Your Honor, please, a provable violation of the Constitution,” Ligutan said.

He also said the National Bureau of Investigation would prove through a witness that it had filed a case against Duterte over the alleged threats.

“Now, yung sasabihin, was that a criminal acts? Yes, Your Honor, please. Kaya nga yung NBI through this witness will prove na nag-file na ng kaso yung NBI against the Vice President exactly sa mga naging pagbabanta niya,” Ligutan said.

Ligutan then addressed the public before defense counsel Carlo Joaquin Narvasa objected.

“But you know, Your Honor, I’m a lawyer, but I’m willing to take off yung robe ko as a lawyer and answer the question directly. Mga kababayan, kailan ba naging normal-” Ligutan said.

Narvasa objected, saying: “Your Honor, this is no longer answering the question.”

Sen. Francis Escudero, the presiding officer, allowed Ligutan to finish, saying the question had been asked by a senator-judge to a party.

“Kailan ba nangyari sa kasaysayan ng Republika ng Pilipinas na yung pangalawang pangulo ng ating bansa nagbanta, sinabi sa publiko na nakipagkontrata na siya sa isang mamamatay-tao upang patayin ang Pangulo, ang First Lady, yung asawa niya?” Ligutan said.

After being told to wind up, Ligutan said Duterte’s alleged threat against the president’s life was not normal.

“… pagbanta ng Vice Presidente sa buhay ng Pangulo ng Republika ng Pilipinas, hindi po yan normal. Iyan po ay unang pagkakataon na nangyari yan, nakipagkontrata sa isang mamamatay-tao, Your Honor, please, to do that,” he said.

Ligutan said the alleged act amounted to betrayal of public trust even without resolving whether it was criminal.

“Even without going into the question, is that a criminal act, Your Honor, please? That act, (I am) 110% sure, betrayed the public trust that the Vice President got in the previous elections,” he said.

Escudero later said Hontiveros’ question touched on what he described as the final issue in the impeachment case: whether the alleged acts are impeachable.

“Chair would like to remind my colleagues, the question posed by Senator Judge Risa pertains to the final question of this entire impeachment proceedings already, if that is an impeachable act or not,” Escudero said.

Escudero said Narvasa would be given a similar amount of time to explain why the alleged act was not impeachable.

Narvasa asked to respond after cross-examination.

“I would like the Honorable Court to play back what the prosecutor said because it’s very interesting. So may I be indulged to allow to give my answer after my cross-examination?” he said.

Escudero granted the request.

Sen. Pia Cayetano then manifested support for Escudero’s observation, saying Ligutan’s remarks resembled a closing statement.

“That was like a closing statement, Mr. President,” Cayetano said.

Cayetano said the impeachment court must follow the process in determining what evidence is admissible.

“So I don’t think this is fair because some parts are exciting, some parts are dragging,” Cayetano said.

“We’re trying our best to be paying attention and what evidence, we have to ferret the evidence before us, what is admissible, what is not,” she added.

Cayetano warned against shortcutting the proceedings.

“The official objections will come later. But when we allow this to happen, na-shortcut na natin yung process,” she said.

Cayetano also asked the parties not to take advantage of the impeachment court’s generosity.

“We must follow the rules, and I know you are being courteous to all of us, but that was a closing statement,” Cayetano said.

“And I also ask the parties involved, you have an oath as lawyers. Don’t take advantage of the generosity of this Impeachment Court. I don’t want to see this happen again. Thank you, Mr. President,” she added.

Cayetano later moved to strike the prosecution’s statements from the record.

“Sorry, Mr. President. I don’t mean to interrupt. I want to give the defense their time. I respectfully move that the statements of the prosecution be stricken off the record. It is not proper for those statements to have been made. Thank you,” she said.

Narvasa joined the motion, but Escudero said it would be taken up at the proper time.

Sen. Erwin Tulfo then asked that the impeachment court be furnished in advance with sworn statements, testimony or affidavits of witnesses that both prosecution and defense intend to present.

“While the judicial affidavit rule does not strictly apply to impeachment proceedings, its underlying objectives of promoting orderly and efficient presentation of evidence may be instructive,” Tulfo said.

“Advance access to the witness’s sworn statement would assist the senator judges in following the testimony and preparing clarificatory questions,” he added.

Tulfo said advance copies could help avoid similar situations.

“Sa madaling sabi po, hinihiling lang po natin na kung mayroon nang nakahandang sinumpaang salaysay ng susunod na testigo, magbigay na sana ng mga kopya nito sa aming mga senator judges bago pa po ang pagdinig upang magsilbing gabay sa pagtatanong at pagtatalakay. Maiwasan po natin ang mga sitwasyon na ito. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer,” he said.

Escudero said the court did not adopt the judicial affidavit rule because it wanted testimony to be given in open court for senator-judges and the public.

“However, the court shall endeavor through the clerk of court to give the senator judges a copy of the annexes attached, if they have not yet done so, to the pretrial order and the pretrial briefs remarked by the parties, because it would encompass already approximately 80% of the documents that will be presented by both parties,” Escudero said.

Hontiveros later clarified that her question focused on the materiality of the evidence to the allegations in the Articles of Impeachment.

“But for clarity, Mr. Presiding Officer, my question had to do with how the evidence is material to the allegations in the articles of impeachment,” Hontiveros said.

“Kasi nga po, hindi naman napapatunayan na the Vice President actually sought an assassin,” she added.

Hontiveros said she did not intend to provoke a closing statement.

“I wanted to appreciate the evidence before me in light of the articles of impeachment. If you wish to strike out the response of the prosecutor, then so be it, Mr. Presiding Officer,” she said.

“But for clarity, again, my intention was not to provoke a closing statement. Salamat po, Mr. Presiding Officer.”

Escudero said the matter would be reviewed because of a problem in obtaining an updated copy of the transcript of stenographic notes.

Given Hontiveros’ clarification, Escudero said Ligutan’s response was not responsive to the question.

“Because clearly the question he answered was whether or not it constituted an impeachable offense,” Escudero said.

Escudero tabled the motion to strike the prosecution’s statement from the record and said it would be discussed and decided at a later date.

The exchange underscored the legal and political challenge at the heart of Article IV: whether Duterte’s alleged statements, even if not direct proof of an actual assassination contract, can be treated as impeachable conduct because of the office she holds and the constitutional standards attached to it.