THE House prosecution on Friday acknowledged what it described as the defense’s admission that Vice President Sara Z. Duterte made the alleged threats at the center of the fourth article of impeachment, but maintained that no circumstance can justify such remarks.
House prosecutor Bicol Saro Party-list Rep. Terry Ridon said one of the prosecution’s key takeaways from the first week of trial was the defense’s position that the alleged threats were justified, which he said effectively acknowledged that the remarks had been made.
“Nakita natin ‘yung very clear admission of the defense through their speech, kung saan, una, they’re admitting the threat of the VP against the President, only that it is justified,” Ridon said during a press briefing.
Ridon said the prosecution views the defense’s position and the admission of its evidence into the trial record as two of the most significant developments during the first week of proceedings.
“Mahalaga po ito dahil this evidence has already been subjected to direct examination and cross-examination of the defense panel,” Ridon said.
“Ibig sabihin po hindi na lang po ito media interviews in previous proceedings, hindi na lang po ito House Committee on Justice proceedings. Ito po ay Senate impeachment trial, entry of evidence into the record already. At na-subject na po ito sa cross-examination ng depensa,” Ridon said.
According to Ridon, the prosecution’s evidence and the defense’s own arguments now point to the same factual issue—that the alleged threats were made—while differing on whether they could be justified.
“So ibig sabihin on two distinct separate points on the evidence itself, ‘yung pagpapakita ng video mismo doon po sa paglilitis. Pangalawa, doon po sa pag-amin mismo ng depensa sa paglilitis ho mismo na merong aktwal na pagbabanta. Sino ang nagbanta? Ang Pangalawang Pangulo. Mayroong pagbabanta, laban kanino ‘yung pagbabanta? Sinabi na rin ho nila, laban sa Pangulo. Hindi ba? Pero justified daw po kasi ito,” he said.
Ridon maintained that whether the alleged threats were justified is a matter for the Senate impeachment court to determine.
“So ‘iyun pong whether it is justified or not, it is not for the prosecution to say, it is also not for the defense to say. It is for the appreciation again of the Senate Impeachment Court,” he said.
The fourth article of impeachment accuses Duterte of committing grave threats and inciting to sedition over statements she made during a Nov. 23, 2024 online press conference, including remarks that she had contracted someone to kill President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and then-Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez if she herself were killed.
The online press conference was held after the House of Representatives ordered the detention of Duterte’s then-chief of staff, Atty. Zuleika Lopez, during its inquiry into the alleged misuse of confidential funds.
During the first week of the impeachment trial, defense lawyer Mark Vinluan argued that Duterte’s statements should be viewed in the context of Lopez’s detention and the alleged “Oplan Romanov,” which he described as a supposed plot against the Vice President.
Vinluan argued that the remarks were made amid extraordinary circumstances and should not be viewed in isolation.
The House prosecution has consistently rejected that argument, saying no evidence of the alleged “Oplan Romanov” has been presented before the Senate impeachment court.
It has likewise argued that neither heightened emotions nor any perceived threat against Duterte can justify alleged threats against the President.
metrosundaily
