Barbers Questions Legitimacy of Alleged Assassination Contract in Duterte Impeachment Trial
The existence of an alleged assassination contract is a central issue in the impeachment trial of Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte. Prosecution panel members argue that no sane individual would formalize such a deal on paper, highlighting the lack of evidence.
MANILA, Philippines — The existence of an alleged assassination contract is a central issue in the impeachment trial of Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte. Prosecution panel spokesperson Robert Ace Barbers pointed out that no sane individual would place a contract to kill on paper. During a press briefing after the third day of the impeachment trial at the Senate, Barbers questioned whether someone intending to hire a killer would sign a document that could later be used against them. He also humorously raised the scenario of suing for breach of contract if the deal failed to materialize. "I have not seen such a thing, where a criminal will execute a contract. If indeed the person is an assassin, I don’t think that there will be a contract, I don’t think that they will sign," Barbers told reporters in Filipino on Wednesday. "For example, if they did not fulfill the contract, will you sue them for breach of contract? That’s not the case right, so I don’t honestly think there’s a contract that would be executed by the contracting parties and the person, the party involved," he added. The next question to this argument, Barbers said, is if this contract will be notarized by a lawyer — stressing the absurdity of a printed contract for killers. "Actually the follow-up question there is whether it is true that there is a contract, will you have it notarized?, he pointed out. House of Representatives prosecution team member and San Juan Rep. Bel Zamora said that under the country’s legal system, the deal automatically becomes void if the contract being notarized by lawyers involves illegal matters. "Well of course Cong. Ace is correct, I’m sure nobody has done a contract relating to the hiring of an assassin, I mean as lawyers, I have not experienced anything like that," Zamora, a lawyer by profession, said partly in Filipino. Duterte’s supporters and allies have questioned the specific allegation that she issued grave threats, as they claimed that there is no proof that the Vice President contracted a killer to kill the Marcos couple and Romualdez. During the third day of the trial, a portion of the defense’s cross-examination of National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Senior Agent John Mark Calilung focused on whether he had personal knowledge of who is the alleged hitman that Duterte had supposedly hired. READ: Sara Duterte trial: Witness admits no direct knowledge of alleged hitman According to Calilung, he only learned of Duterte’s alleged threats after watching an online media briefing on November 23, 2024, during which she made the remarks. However, when later asked about the same topic by Senator-judge Bam Aquino, the witness clarified that he had no personal knowledge of the alleged assassin because he was only tasked with investigating the video. Then in his speech, defense panel member Mark Vinluan stressed that there is no proof that Duterte has hired an assassin. In the same press briefing, Zamora also said that whether or not Duterte actually executed a contract with an assassin to kill President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, the Vice President’s mere statements constituted an impeachable offense. Duterte’s threats are a part of the prosecution team’s Article IV of the Articles of Impeachment. It is also the first issue that was tackled in the impeachment trial. The threats from the Vice President came in an online press briefing on November 23, 2024, while her chief-of-staff, Undersecretary Zuleika Lopez, was detained at the House premises. Lopez was detained after being cited for contempt by the House committee on good government and public accountability of the 19th Congress, as she supposedly committed undue interference during the investigation of the alleged confidential fund misuse within Duterte’s offices. READ: Sara Duterte’s kill remark vs Marcos is ‘active threat’ – Palace As she was infuriated over Lopez’s detention and subsequent attempts to transfer her, Duterte badmouthed the Marcos couple and Romualdez. At one point, Duterte was asked if she is concerned about her security; she replied by urging people not to worry since she had contracted someone to kill the three if she herself gets killed. /gsg
多角的分析
このニュースの経済的側面は、政治的不安定性が投資家心理に与える影響という点で重要です。弾劾裁判の長期化や、副大統領の職務遂行能力への懸念は、フィリピン経済の安定性に対する不透明感を増大させる可能性があります。特に、海外からの直接投資（FDI）や国内投資の意思決定において、政治的リスクの評価は重要な要素となります。過去には、政治的混乱が通貨安や株価下落を招いた事例もあり、今回の裁判の進展によっては、経済指標に影響が出る可能性も否定できません。
投資家にとって、このニュースはフィリピンの政治的リスクを再評価する契機となり得ます。副大統領という高位の政治家が弾劾裁判に直面している状況は、法制度の安定性や政権運営の予見可能性に対する懸念を生じさせます。特に、契約の有効性や法的な手続きの透明性に関する議論は、契約社会であるフィリピンにおいて、ビジネス上の信頼性に関わる問題として捉えられます。現時点では、具体的な経済的影響は限定的かもしれませんが、裁判の長期化や予期せぬ展開は、株式市場や為替市場に動揺をもたらす可能性があります。
この事件は、フィリピン社会における権力闘争と、その法的な帰結に対する関心を高めています。副大統領という国民の代表である人物が、殺害請負契約という深刻な疑惑で弾劾される可能性は、市民の政治への信頼や、法の下の平等という原則について、多くの議論を巻き起こしています。特に、公職者の言動の責任や、証拠の有無、そしてそれが国民生活に与える影響について、市民の間で様々な意見が交わされるでしょう。また、SNSなどを通じて、この裁判に関する情報が瞬時に拡散され、世論形成に影響を与える可能性も高いです。
市民の視点からは、この弾劾裁判は、政治家が国民に対してどのような責任を負うべきか、そして法がどのように機能するべきかという根源的な問いを投げかけています。副大統領のような高位の公職者が、殺害をほのめかすような発言をすること自体が、国民の安全や社会の規範に対する挑戦と受け取られかねません。特に、証拠の有無や契約の真偽を巡る攻防は、法的手続きの信頼性そのものに関わる問題です。市民は、この裁判を通じて、法制度が公正に機能し、権力者がその行動に責任を持つことを期待しています。また、政治的な不安定さが、物価や治安といった日々の生活にどのような影響を与えるのか、という懸念も抱いていると考えられます。
背景・歴史的文脈
フィリピンにおける弾劾制度は、大統領、副大統領、最高裁判所判事、憲法機関の長官などを罷免するための手段として憲法に定められています。過去にも、ジョセフ・エストラーダ大統領やマノロ・ロハス下院議長などが弾劾手続きの対象となった例があります。今回の副大統領に対する弾劾は、その根拠として「重大な脅迫」が挙げられており、これはフィリピン刑法における「 grave threats 」に該当する可能性があります。この裁判の焦点となっている「殺害請負契約」の存在は、証拠の有無やその法的有効性を巡る攻防であり、フィリピンの司法・法制度の運用能力が問われています。また、副大統領の言動の背景には、彼女の所属する政党と現政権との間の政治的緊張関係が存在すると見られています。
原文ソース
Inquirer NewsInfo