A "layman-spokesperson" of the House prosecution panel has lectured Vice President Sara Duterte’s camp on the legal implications of "free speech", as it applies to the impeachment trial respondent's alleged death threats against President Marcos.

Despite not being a lawyer, Lanao del Sur 1st district Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong succinctly laid down his points during the Saturday News Forum on June 27 at Dapo Restaurant in Quezon City.

Adiong pointed to the Duterte’s camp argument in its answer before the Senate impeachment court that her statements against President Marcos fall within the ambit of freedom of speech.

“You know, all lawyers would agree that there’s no such thing as absolute freedom. All freedom are also subject to some regulation,” Adiong said.

“One cannot go around the streets accusing anybody of something without the necessary consequence of that action, either verbally or acted upon,” he noted.

Perhaps one of the strongest articles of impeachment against Duterte stems from her online press conference in November 2024, during which she said she had instructed someone to kill President Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and then-House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez if an alleged assassination plot against her succeeded.

The Vice President’s remarks--which she punctuated with the phrase "no joke, no joke"--have been replayed countless times on social media.

Adiong said the prosecution believes the alleged threats should be judged by their impact on those they targeted rather than the circumstances under which they were made.

“It’s not actually her utterance that should be focused on, it’s the effect of that utterance on the person that is being threatened," he said.

The Mindanao congressman and House "Young Guns" bloc member pointed to Duterte’s own words as evidence, and that these were intended to be taken seriously.

“Even herself qualified the degree of threat actually saying these words. Siya mismo ang nagsabi, 'no joke, no joke' (She herself said 'no joke, no joke),” underscored Adiong.

Alonto Adiong said it is now up to the 24 senator-judges determine whether or not the alleged threats constitute betrayal of public trust and high crimes--both impeachable offenses.

“So it’s for the court’s appreciation. That’s why we have forwarded this to the Senate, so that the Senate, acting as impeachment court, can actually and finally settle whether our claim in our allegation that this is indeed constitute betrayal of public trust, this would constitute high crimes,” he said.

“Now, mind you, we are confident that we have the evidence to present before the Senate,” Adiong added.

He reckoned that public officials have a duty to set an example, and warned that normalizing threats could have broader consequences for society.

Adiong was earlier designated as one of the House prosecution panel's mouthpieces, with the aim of laymanizing the highly-technical nature of the impeachment trial.

Further commenting on the Duterte camp's 51-page answer to the articles of impeachment, Adiong said it was obvious that the respondent only planned on making procedural and constitutional objections moving forward.

This, with Duterte’s defense team arguing that the impeachment proceedings are void because they were allegedly attended by bad faith and manifest partiality.

“It only confirms our initial observation that the defense could not provide particular counter-evidence or argument to challenge, even to contest the allegations contained under the articles of impeachment,” Adiong said.

“That from the very start, they’ve been harping about procedural objections, constitutional objections, which all of us know is already way, way past over that stage,” he added.

Adiong said the prosecution expected the defense to submit specific evidence and counter-evidence challenging the impeachment allegations, but its answer did not do so.

“We expect that in the pre-trial brief, they can actually provide particular, specific evidence, counter-evidence, to at least challenge ’yung mga accusations. But then again, the summation of the case that they would like to bring forth, as indicated by that statement, only validates our earlier observation na kulang talaga ’yung kanilang pwedeng mai-offer sa korte (that they don't have much to offer to the court),” he said.