No proof of hired assassin, Sara's camp tells impeachment court

MANILA, Philippines — The defense panel for Vice President Sara Duterte argued before the Senate impeachment court yesterday that there is no proof that the Vice President hired an assassin. Defense counsel Mark Vinluan stated in his closing argument that the prosecution failed to prove that Duterte had actually hired an assassin to kill the President, the First Lady, and Romualdez. “There is no proof of any contracting of an assassin,” Vinluan told the impeachment court. “The prosecution admitted that the video does not prove any fact other than its existence. The prosecution has no other competent evidence to prove that Vice President Sara contracted an assassin,” he added. Vinluan cited the exchange between Sen. Risa Hontiveros and House prosecutor Amando Ligutan on Tuesday wherein Hontiveros pointed out that Duterte’s statements did not prove she had actually hired an assassin. Vinluan noted that the prosecution itself acknowledged the video “may not actually 100 percent prove” that Duterte had indeed contracted a hitman to carry out the alleged assassination plot. “Hence, the prosecution admitted that the video does not prove any fact other than its existence. In simple words, there is no proof of any contracting of an assassin,” Vinluan said. He argued that the term “assassin” was introduced by others who allegedly took Duterte’s remarks out of context. “The truth of the matter is this: she and her family were threatened. And while her response was unconventional, it was justified,” he said. Vinluan maintained that Duterte made the statements as “a wife, mother, daughter and sister” reacting to what the defense described as threats against her family, including an alleged plot referred to as “Operation Romanov.” The defense lawyer also argued that the prosecution had incorrectly interpreted Duterte’s remarks as the culmination of a series of threats against the President. Vinluan further argued that even if prosecutors pursue allegations of grave threats or inciting to sedition, such offenses fall under the Revised Penal Code and are tried before regular courts. The prosecution has maintained that the remarks demonstrate intent and form part of a pattern of conduct unbecoming of an elected public official. Vinluan also called the impeachment trial “a waste of this honorable court’s time and the Filipino people’s money” as he maintained that the Vice President did not commit an impeachable offense. “In the discourse yesterday, talking about Vice President Sara’s statements during the Nov. 23, 2024 presscon, senator-judge Risa Hontiveros stated, and I quote, ‘none of these statements are proof that the Vice President actually contracted an assassin or hired one.’ She is absolutely right,” Vinluan said in the closing statement of the defense team yesterday. Also during the trial, presiding officer Francis Escudero ruled that he would no longer entertain motions from either the prosecution or defense to strike statements from the record since the proceedings are being broadcast live and remain accessible to the public. The ruling drew objections from Sens. Alan Peter Cayetano and Pia Cayetano, who argued that procedural rules should still be strictly observed to ensure a fair trial. “So to those saying the numerous objections are merely delaying tactics, that’s unfair,” Alan Peter said. He also urged fellow senator-judges to refrain from asking questions that could prejudice the proceedings, saying some questions effectively allow either side to deliver arguments outside the proper stage of the trial. Cayetano said he accepted Escudero’s ruling but appealed for greater restraint among senator-judges to prevent the impeachment trial from turning into “a political fiasco or circus.” - MarK Ernest Villeza