The Department of Justice (DOJ) assured on Wednesday, Feb. 12, that the rule of law and due process will be observed in the resolution of the criminal charges filed against Vice President Sara Duterte.
DOJ Assistant Secretary Jose Dominic F. Clavano IV made the assurance after the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) filed before the department charges for inciting to sedition under Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and grave threats under Article 282 of the RPC in relation to the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 against the Vice President.
“The DOJ remains committed to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that due process is strictly followed in all legal proceedings,” Clavano said.
The charges stemmed from the statements made by Duterte during an online press conference held in November last year.
During the press conference, Duterte said she has ordered someone, in the event she dies, to kill President Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
Clavano said ‘the charges will now undergo evaluation and preliminary investigation before the NPS (National Prosecution Service).”
“Under DOJ Department Circular No. 20, the investigating prosecutors must determine whether based on the evidence, there is a prima facie case with reasonable certainty of conviction,” he said.
“A prima facie case is established by such evidence which if left uncontroverted, shall be sufficient to establish all the elements of the crime,” he added.
He also said the process will “undergo case build up as needed to assure that there is sufficient evidence and that the respondent is not unduly haled to court.”
He noted that the process involves “requiring the respondent to submit a counter-affidavit, reviewing the evidence from both parties, and assessing whether the case meets the higher threshold of evidence for filing in court, or whether the case should be dismissed for lack of evidence.”
In determining if there is grave threat, Clavano said prosecutors will study if “the statement was made with the purpose of creating intimidation or fear.”
While in the inciting to sedition charge, he said prosecutors will determine if her statements ”pose a real and imminent threat to public order, regardless of whether actual unrest occurs.”
“While freedom of speech is protected, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that it does not extend to speech that incites violence, rebellion, or disorder,” he pointed out.
“The law does not require that an unlawful act be carried out—only that the statement was made with the intent to stir public unrest or disrupt stability,” he stressed.