The defense panel of Vice President Sara Duterte on Wednesday, July 8, argued that the prosecution failed to present competent evidence proving that she had hired or contracted an assassin, as the Senate impeachment trial entered its third day.

In his closing remarks, defense lawyer Mark Vinluan said the prosecution itself had acknowledged that Duterte’s statements during a Nov. 23, 2024 press conference did not conclusively establish that she had contracted an assassin.

Vinluan cited Senator-Judge Risa Hontiveros’ observation during the proceedings that Duterte’s statements were not proof that she had actually hired an assassin.

On the second day of the trial on July 7, Hontiveros noted that “none of these statements are proof that the Vice President actually contracted an assassin or hired one.”

He said the prosecution had responded that the statements may not “100 percent prove” that Duterte had contracted one.

“The prosecution admitted that the video does not prove any fact other than its existence,” Vinluan said. “In simple words, there is no proof of any contracting of an assassin,” he added.

Vinluan said the testimony of National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Senior Agent John Mark Calilung, along with other evidence presented by the prosecution, was insufficient to prove the allegation against Duterte.

“Ang testimony ni Calilung, gaya ng iba pang ebidensya kuno ng prosecution, ay hindi sapat para patunayan ang paratang na ito (Calilung’s testimony, like the other supposed evidence of the prosecution, is not sufficient to prove this allegation.,” Vinluan said.

READ: 

He argued that the prosecution was attempting to establish what he described as a “stretch narrative” through a collection of materials that did not directly prove that Duterte had hired an assassin.

The defense lawyer also maintained that Duterte had previously clarified that she did not speak to an assassin, saying the term had been used by individuals who allegedly took her remarks out of context.

“Trying to prove this stretch narrative using a hodgepodge of materials is a waste of this honorable court’s time and the Filipino people’s money,” he added.

Duterte is facing an impeachment case before the Senate, with Article IV of the Articles of Impeachment dealing with allegations involving an assassination plot, grave threats, and inciting to sedition against President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr.

Vinluan said Duterte’s November 2024 remarks should be viewed in the context of alleged threats against her and her family.

“The truth of the matter is this. She and her family were threatened, and while her response was unconventional, it was justified,” Vinluan said. “What triggered her response was a question about ‘Operation Romanov,’ which is the plot to eliminate VP Sara and her entire family,” he added.

He referred to what he described as “Operation Romanov,” which he claimed involved an alleged plot to eliminate Duterte and members of her family.

According to Vinluan, Duterte’s remarks were made after months of alleged harassment, security threats, surveillance, and intelligence operations against her and her family after she left the administration.

“When VP Sara uttered those words, she was not responding as Sara Duterte, the Vice President, but as Sara Duterte, the wife, mother, daughter, and sister who only sought to protect her own life and the lives of her family members,” Vinluan said.

The defense lawyer further argued that the so-called “Operation Romanov” was in place and that the threat against Duterte and her family was real.

He claimed that Duterte’s homes in Davao City and Manila had been profiled, members of her security detail had been removed, and details of her official schedule had been leaked.

“VP Sara became the target of unauthorized intelligence and surveillance operations by government operatives that exposed her family to high-level risks and security threats, thereby causing intense trauma and uncontrollable fear,” he added.

The defense also argued that the allegations of grave threats and inciting to sedition do not qualify as impeachable offenses under the Constitution.

“She didn’t commit an impeachable offense. She drew the line in the sand and said, enough is enough. That is the meaning, and that is the context,” Vinluan said.

He also noted that these offenses are defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code and fall under the jurisdiction of regular courts.

He maintained that the allegations do not constitute “other high crimes” that may serve as grounds for impeachment.

“These charges are not other high crimes as contemplated by the Constitution as grounds for impeachment and are therefore not impeachable,” Vinluan said.

The defense lawyer further denied that Duterte committed betrayal of public trust, arguing that her remarks reflected the frustrations of ordinary Filipinos over corruption and governance.

“VP Sara was fighting two important battles that day. One against the threat to her family’s life, and another against the life of the ordinary Filipino, constantly suffocated by the immense weight of corruption, which she talked about during the press conference. She never incited sedition. She merely echoed the voice of ordinary Filipinos,” Vinluan said.

“Her message that day only reflected what was already in their hearts and minds. There was no betrayal of public trust. She actually upheld the people’s trust as she spoke for and on behalf of the people,” he added.

Duterte’s impeachment trial is expected to continue as the Senate impeachment court hears evidence and arguments related to the allegations under Article IV. 

RELATED STORY: