HOUSE impeachment prosecutor and San Juan City Rep. Ysabel Zamora on Wednesday clarified that the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte is not a criminal prosecution for grave threats but one that seeks to prove an impeachable offense was committed.
After the third day of the impeachment trial, Zamora said at a press conference that the Senate impeachment court’s duty is to determine whether the vice president’s actions constituted impeachable offenses such as betrayal of public trust, high crimes, and culpable violation of the Constitution.
“But without going to the merits of the case, without going to their evidence, or the prosecution’s evidence masyado no siguro at the end of the day, dapat natin matandaan na hindi naman tayo nagpoprosecute ng isang criminal case. Hindi tayo nagpoprosecute ng grave threats,” she said.
As one of the members assigned to prosecute Article IV of the impeachment articles, Zamora responded to the defense’s repeated argument that the prosecution has no evidence proving the vice president had entered into a contract or an agreement with an assassin to kill President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr.
While that may be true, she stressed that the impeachment court is not trying the criminal offense of grave threats.
The prosecution’s first witness, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) senior agent John Mark Calilung, testified on the authentication of the Nov. 23, 2024 press conference video in which Duterte made statements allegedly threatening the president, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Ferdinand G. Martin Romualdez.
Not only did she explicitly say she would have them killed if she were killed, she also said she was not joking when she had already spoken to someone to do her bidding.
Zamora explained that even though criminal prosecutions require proof of every element of a specific offense, impeachment proceedings are governed by a different constitutional standard.
“Sa isang criminal case, kailangan mo ng elemento, ‘yung mga elemento ng isang krimen. Pero dito po, ano ba ‘yung pinoprosecute natin? ‘Yung impeachable offenses of betrayal of public trust, high crimes, and culpable violation of the constitution. ‘Yun po yung tatlo na related ‘yung grave threats natin na article, Article IV,” she said.
According to Zamora, Article IV of the impeachment complaint asks whether Duterte’s public statements and conduct on Nov. 23, 2024 constituted a betrayal of public trust rather than whether the prosecution can establish the technical elements of the crime of grave threats.
“So tandaan natin na wala naman specific elemento itong mga ‘to. Ang sinasabi natin ang actuations ng vice president in relation to that November 23, 2024 video ay nag-coconstitute ng betrayal of public trust, or she betrayed the public trust dahil sa kanyang pagbabanta sa buhay ng presidente, ng first lady at former speaker of the House,” she said.
“This is a very general term — betrayal of public trust. So ‘wag ho natin tignan ang specific elements ng isang crime under the Revised Penal Code,” she added.
Former Surigao del Norte Rep. Robert Ace Barbers, an impeachment adviser and prosecution spokesperson, also dismissed the argument on the supposed absence of an alleged contract between Duterte and an assassin.
He stressed that it would be illogical to expect individuals conspiring to commit a crime to enter into a legally enforceable written agreement.
“Wala pa ako nakitang nangyaring ganun ‘no, na kung saan ang isang kriminal ay may kontrata. If indeed the person is an assassin, wala naman sigurong kontrata yan, wala naman siguro pipirma,” Barbers said.
“Halimbawa hindi tumupad sa kontrata, dedemadna mo ba siya ng breach of contract. ‘Di ba hindi? So honestly, walang kontrata na dapat tignan among the contracting parties and the party involved,” he added.
Zamora agreed, adding that even from a legal standpoint, such a contract would be void.
“Well of course, tama ho si Cong Ace ‘no, na I’m sure wala pang nakagawa ng may written contract relating to the hiring of an assassin. As lawyers, wala pa tayong nahawakang ganyan kaso,” she said.
“And eto ha, this is not from a prosecutor, but I guess from a lawyer — any contract involving hiring an assassin or involving a killing of a person would be illegal because it involved something that is void, that is illegal. So the contract itself is void,” she added.
Barbers then pointed out, “Actually ang follow up question diyan, kung halimbawa totoo may contract, inonotaryo ba ‘yan?”
Zamora maintained that the prosecution’s position remains unchanged regardless of whether the defense insists there was no contract with an assassin.
“Contract or no contract, it is our position that her utterances made on November 23, 2024 constitute impeachable offenses of betrayal of public trust, high crimes and culpable violation of the constitution,” Zamora said.
