Sara Duterte faces impeachment over alleged hitman remarks

Vice President Sara Duterte's 2024 statements claiming that she had contracted a hitman to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former Speaker and Leyte 1st District Rep. Martin Romualdez constitute both a crime and an impeachable offense, the House prosecution panel argued on Tuesday. Private prosecutor Amando Virgil Ligutan made the assertion in response to a question from senator-judge Risa Hontiveros on why Duterte's remarks during a November 2024 press conference, as well as statements she made in a separate October 2024 briefing, should be considered impeachable offenses under the Articles of Impeachment. "We are able to answer two questions, Your Honor. Among the impeachment charges against the Vice President are betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution," Ligutan said after presenting National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Senior Agent Mark Calilung, who investigated Duterte's alleged threats. "As to the issue of her statements in the videos, was that a criminal act? Yes, Your Honor," he added. A complaint has already been filed against Duterte before the Department of Justice in connection with the alleged threats, Ligutan said. "That is why the NBI, through this witness, filed a complaint against the Vice President because of those threats," he added. Ligutan also cited Rule 130, Section 35 of the Rules of Court, arguing that Duterte's statements demonstrated her intent to kill the President. "We are invoking a rule under the Rules of Evidence that allows statements or utterances of a person, even if they are not direct evidence of an act, to establish specific intent, knowledge, identity, plan, or system," he said. "The prosecution is showing that what the Vice President said on the night of November 23, 2024, was not an isolated statement. It was the culmination of a series of statements in which she expressed her desire to kill the President, the First Lady, and the former Speaker of the House," the private prosecutor added. Ligutan argued that Duterte's statements demonstrated a clear intent and plan to harm the President. "These statements prove one thing: that the Vice President had a plan, a system, and knowledge of what she wanted to do to the President," "She wanted him beheaded. She wanted him killed — no less than the President of the Republic of the Philippines," Ligutan added. Ligutan further argued that, regardless of the legal issues involved, it was unprecedented for a sitting Vice President to publicly claim that she had hired a hitman to assassinate the President, making the act a betrayal of public trust. "When in the history of the Republic of the Philippines has a Vice President publicly declared that she had contracted a hitman to kill the President and the First Lady?" he said. Ligutan maintained that Duterte's remarks were unprecedented and, by themselves, also amounted to a betrayal of public trust. "The Vice President's threat against the life of the President of the Republic of the Philippines is not normal. This is the first time in our history that a Vice President has claimed to have hired a hitman." "Even without addressing whether it constitutes a criminal act, that act, 110% sure, betrayed the public trust that the Vice President received from the people in the previous elections," Ligutan added. Senate impeachment court presiding officer Senator Francis Escudero noted that Hontiveros' question "pertains to the final issue of this entire impeachment proceeding" and said the defense would be given the same amount of time to explain why Duterte's statements should not be considered impeachable offenses. Defense counsel Carlo Narvasa said the defense preferred to answer the question after cross-examining Calilung. Escudero granted the request, noting that Ligutan's responses already contained conclusions of fact and law rather than evidence. Senator-judge Pia Cayetano then appealed to Escudero to admonish senator-judges against asking what she described as "unfair questions." "That was like a closing statement, Mr. President. I don't think this is fair. When we allow this to happen, we resort to a shortcut in the process." "So, with all due respect, Mr. President, admonish us. Call us out if our question is not asked at the proper time because we must follow the rules," She also moved to strike Ligutan's responses from the record. Narvasa joined Cayetano's motion, but Escudero replied, "No need, counsel. Most of them will be taken up at the proper time by this court." Hontiveros, however, clarified that her question was intended to establish the relevance of the evidence presented by the prosecution. "My question had to do with how the evidence is material to the allegations in the Articles of Impeachment because the evidence presented to us does not exactly prove that the Vice President actually sought an assassin." "I wanted to appreciate the evidence before me in light of the Articles of Impeachment. If you wish to strike the prosecutor's response from the record, then so be it, Mr. Presiding Officer. But, for clarity, my intention was not to provoke a closing statement," Escudero ruled that Cayetano's motion to strike Ligutan's statements from the record would be resolved at a later time to give the defense an opportunity to comment first.— MCG, GMA News