HOUSE Prosecutor Joel Chua of Manila said Monday that he felt threatened and obtained personal security after Vice President Sara Z. Duterte made statements that mentioned him and the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability in 2024.
During a press conference, Chua said that the identity and position of the person who made the statements affected how he responded to them.
“Hindi ordinaryong tao itong nagbitaw ng ganyang pananalita, bagkus pangalawa sa pinakamataas na opisyal ng ating bansa,” Chua said.
He was responding to a reporter who asked how he felt after the impeachment court played video excerpts in which Duterte mentioned him and criticized members of the House committee. Chua said he had already heard the statements on the night of the incident but remained affected when the recordings were replayed.
He added: “Pero makikita natin dito sa mga salaysay at video na pinakita ang kanyang pagiging violent nature na very unbecoming para sa pangalawang Pangulo ng ating bansa.”
Asked directly whether he felt threatened in 2024, Chua answered, “Siyempre, bakit sino naman po ba ang hindi matatakot sa mga pananalita ng ating Bise Presidente?”
Chua said he did not have a security detail before the incident. He said the statements prompted him to change that arrangement.
“Because of that, naglagay ako ng security dahil hindi naman talaga ordinaryo itong nagbitaw ng salita laban sa atin.” Chua added, “Hindi ito isang salita na binabalewala.”
During Monday’s trial, the prosecution presented Atty. Jeremy C. Lotoc, a National Bureau of Investigation regional director and former chief of its Cybercrime Division. Lotoc testified about the bureau’s investigation into Duterte’s November 23, 2024 public statements.
The court played portions of the November recording identified by Lotoc. During the hearing, the presiding officer clarified that not all the profanities in those portions were directed at the President, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos or former Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez. Lotoc said several referred to one or more of the three officials, while others mentioned lawmakers.
At the press conference, Chua also rejected the argument that a threat should be disregarded because it was conditional. He compared it with a threat made against a debtor, saying a conditional statement can still become the subject of a grave threat complaint.
Chua said: “A threat is a threat.”
metrosundaily
