THE House prosecution on Thursday rejected the defense’s attempt to justify Vice President Sara Z. Duterte’s alleged threats against President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., saying no public official has the right to threaten another person’s life, regardless of any perceived provocation.
The prosecution issued the statement after defense counsel Mark Vinluan invoked the alleged “Oplan Romanov” during the third day of the impeachment trial, arguing that Duterte’s controversial remarks should be viewed in the context of supposed threats against her and her family.
“Justification pa ba ‘yan para sa isang public official na manakot ng buhay ng kahit sinong tao, lalong-lalo na ang buhay ng Presidente, na papalitan niya, siya mismo kapag nangyari ito at pinatay siya?” lawyer Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr., legal spokesperson and counsel for the House prosecutors, said during a press briefing.
Tolosa stressed that Vinluan’s claim about the alleged “Oplan Romanov” remains unsupported by any evidence presented before the Senate impeachment court.
“Itong Oplan Romanov, sa paglilitis na ito, narinig lang natin ito sa isang naging statement ng defense counsel. So maliwanag, wala kahit na anong ebidensya na lalapag dito sa paglilitis na ito na mapatunayan ito in any way. So it just remains an allegation,” he said.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Vinluan argued that Duterte’s remarks, while “unconventional,” were justified because she allegedly believed her family was under threat.
Tolosa said the defense appeared to be using the unproven allegation to explain Duterte’s statements.
“At the end of the day, it seems that by raising this matter, it seems that they’re making the point that they’re trying to justify the threats by raising this,” he said.
He urged the public to consider the implications of that argument.
“Pero ang katanungan diyan na dapat din pag-isipan ng ating mga kababayan, tama ba na kung mayroong pakiramdam na dahil dito sa mga ganitong klaseng allegations, ay puwede nang pagbantaan ang buhay ng ibang tao, puwede nang pagbantaan ang buhay ng Presidente?” Tolosa said.
The fourth article of impeachment accuses Duterte of making grave threats after she publicly declared during an online press briefing on Nov. 23, 2024 that she had arranged for someone to kill President Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez if she herself were killed.
To support the charge, the House prosecution presented National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Senior Agent John Mark Calilung as its first witness. Calilung authenticated digital evidence, including video recordings and official government statements related to Duterte’s remarks.
Tolosa also rejected the defense’s argument that the alleged threat should be treated differently because it was conditional.
“Consistent po ang position po namin diyan kahit sa Articles of Impeachment. That does not diminish the gravity of the acts. It does not make it in any way right,” he said.
House prosecutor San Juan City Rep. Ysabel Maria Zamora echoed the point, saying the distinction has no legal significance.
“Alam niyo, siguro hindi nagma-matter kung conditional or absolute. In any case, wala naman po sa criminal law na conditional threat na tinatawag. Basta nagawa po ang isang threat, ‘yun na po ‘yun. Threat na po ‘yun,” she said.
The House prosecution will resume presenting witnesses next week, beginning with NBI Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc, as it continues presenting evidence on the fourth article of impeachment.
