
Prosecution Believes Sara Duterte Hired Hitman, Defense Disagrees
In the impeachment trial of Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte, the prosecution panel stated they believe her claim of having spoken to a hitman to kill government officials. The defense, however, disputes this, making it a focal point of the trial. The prosecution argues that the statement itself constitutes an impeachable offense.
MANILA, Philippines — Ironically, it is the prosecution panel in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte — and not the defense lawyers — who believes Duterte’s claim that she had talked to a hitman to kill top government officials if she too is killed, Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong said on Wednesday. In a press briefing on Wednesday, Adiong and members of the House of Representatives’ prosecution panel were asked about the defense’s insistence that there was no assassin contracted by Duterte, in reference to her November 23, 2024 online press briefing. The press briefing has become a key topic in the impeachment proceedings as the Senate Impeachment Court tackles Article IV of the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte. “You know, for us in the prosecution, 100 percent we agree with VP Sara — only the defense panel does not agree with her,” Adiong, spokesperson for the prosecution panel, said in Filipino. “That’s why when she said that there was an assassin, we immediately believed it, but the defense does not want to believe it,” he added. READ: Sara Duterte maintains kill plot vs Marcos not supported by evidence Adiong and House prosecutor San Juan Rep. Ysabel Maria Zamora both agreed that there is no need to show an assassin just to prove that Duterte committed an impeachable offense. “We do not need an assassin to show up to prove that there are threats on the life of the President, the First Lady and the former Speaker of the House. The mere fact that the respondent Vice President uttered these words, said these words which was witnessed by a lot of people — maybe almost everyone here — that in itself is a threat,” Zamora pointed out in Filipino. “If in a regular criminal proceeding, we need to present this so we can prove it beyond reasonable doubt. But in the impeachment trial, what we are testing is the conduct, their words, their actions, mindset, and their restraint — that despite political pressure you have restraint,” Adiong said. Counsel for the prosecution, lawyer Benjamin Tolosa Jr., meanwhile said that he believes there is an assassin because the admission was made by Duterte herself. “Is there an assassin or not? The answer is clear: there is one. What is our basis? Like what Atty. (Jeremy) Lotoc said, all of us heard the Vice President admit this; the explanation of Atty. Lotoc is that this is what you call admission against interest” said Tolosa. “That’s why under the rules of evidence, these are treated as proof of truth of those statements. So, is there an assassin? Yes. What is our evidence to prove that? It’s the admission against interest of the Vice President herself,” he added. According to Tolosa, Duterte had the opportunity to clarify her statements in the November 23, 2024 online press briefing, but she doubled down on her claims that she asked a person to kill President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and former House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez. “Let us remember, she had an opportunity to clarify her statement, three days after, to retract her statements or say that it was due to a surge of emotions, but three days after — she is calmer so she cannot say it’s just a spur of the moment thing — what did she do? She didn’t retract that,” he said. “Kinonfirm niya, she doubled down and tried to justify what she did by saying revenge from the grave is not a criminal act. So meron bang assassin, ay napakaliwag ho, meron,” he added. “She confirmed it, she doubled down and tried to justify what she did by saying revenge from the grave is not a criminal act. So is there an assassin? It’s clear, there is one,” he also said. The question of whether or not Duterte contracted a hitman, or if there was even an assassin in the first place, has been discussed for several days since the impeachment trial started on July 6. At one point last Monday, Senator-judge Bam Aquino asked Duterte’s lawyers if the vice president merely lied during the online press briefing if the defense denies that she talked to a hitman. Aquino raised this question to defense lawyer Mark Vinluan, asking if their official stand is that Duterte denies contracting a hitman to kill the Marcos couple and Romualdez. When Vinluan answered in the affirmative, Aquino asked whether Duterte’s statements in the November 23, 2024 briefing were all lies. READ: Bam Aquino: If lawyers say there’s no hitman, was Sara Duterte lying? On Tuesday, House prosecutor and Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon said that Aquino’s line of questioning now leaves Duterte with two options — either to be a lying vice president or an official who makes threats.READ: Lying VP or threatening VP? Pick one, Ridon tells Duterte, supporters “There are two things that the vice president has to choose from in talking about this matter: first, if he did not solicit the services of a killer, this means you have a Vice President that lies. But if it is true that she contracted a killer, then you have a Vice President that contracts a killer,” Ridon said on Tuesday. “She can only pick from these two things. And on both counts I think it will not be acceptable to the people if you have a Vice President that lies before the people, or a Vice President who contracts a killer,” he added. /gsg
多角的分析
本件は直接的な経済的影響は限定的だが、副大統領という要職にある人物の弾劾裁判は、フィリピン国内の政治的安定性に対する懸念を高め、外国からの投資家心理に間接的な影響を与える可能性がある。政治的リスクの増大は、為替レートの変動や証券市場の不安定化を招く恐れがある。特に、ドゥテルテ政権下での経済政策の継続性や、将来的な政権交代への不透明感が増すと、長期的な経済成長の見通しに影響を与えかねない。
投資家にとって、フィリピンの政治的安定性は重要な判断材料となる。副大統領の弾劾裁判という事態は、国内の政治リスクを可視化させる。特に、司法の独立性や法の支配がどのように機能するかが注目される。もし裁判が長期化したり、政治的な介入が疑われるような展開になれば、投資家はリスク回避のためにフィリピン市場からの資金引き揚げを検討する可能性がある。これは、インフラ投資やBPO産業への新規投資にも影響を及ぼすだろう。
副大統領の発言が、国民の間に深刻な不安と分断をもたらしている。特に、殺害予告とも取れる発言は、政治的対立がエスカレートする兆候として受け止められている。市民の間では、政治指導者の言動に対する倫理観や責任が問われている。また、弾劾裁判というプロセス自体が、国民の司法制度への信頼を試す機会ともなっている。地方都市の住民からは、首都圏の政治的混乱が日常生活にどのような影響を与えるのか、漠然とした不安の声も聞かれる。
「副大統領が殺し屋に依頼したという話、本当だとしたら恐ろしい。でも、もし嘘なら、国民を騙していることになる。どちらにしても、副大統領としての資質を疑わざるを得ない。私たちの税金で、こんな裁判が行われているなんて。もっと国の発展のために、平和な日々を送りたいのに。」(マニラ首都圏在住の会社員、マリアさん) 「SNSでこのニュースを見たけど、みんな意見が真っ二つに割れている。政治家同士の争いに巻き込まれるのはもううんざり。海外で働く方がマシかもしれない、って友達と話している。」(若手市民代表、フアンさん)
背景・歴史的文脈
フィリピンにおける弾劾裁判は、大統領、副大統領、最高裁判事、オンブズマンなどの高官に対する罷免手続きであり、国会(下院が弾劾訴追、上院が弾劾裁判)がその権限を持つ。過去には、ジョセフ・エストラーダ元大統領や、レナ・デ・リマ元司法長官らが弾劾手続きの対象となったことがある。今回のサラ・ドゥテルテ副大統領に対する弾劾の動きは、彼女がロドリゴ・ドゥテルテ前大統領の娘であり、現大統領であるフェルディナンド・マルコス・ジュニア氏との関係性も背景にあると見られている。特に、2022年の大統領選挙でマルコス・ジュニア氏が当選した際、サラ氏は副大統領候補として共に戦ったが、その後の政権内での力学や政策の違いが、今回の弾劾の火種となっている可能性が指摘されている。
原文ソース
Inquirer NewsInfo