The defense panel's main argument against impeachment trial respondent Vice President Sara Duterte's "death threat" video sounds like a figment of the imagination.

This can be gleaned from the statements of private prosecutor and spokesperson lawyer Benjamin Tolosa Jr., who said that the alleged "Oplan Romanov" was brought up by the Vice President's lawyers with no details or proof to substantiate its veracity.

“Maliwanag na walang kahit na anong ebidensya na mailalapag dito sa paglilitis na ito na mapapatunayan ito in any way (It is clear that there is no evidence that can be presented in this trial to prove this in any way). It just remains an allegation," Tolosa said of Romanov.

"At the end of the day, it seems that by raising this matter, it seems that they’re trying to justify the threat by raising this,” he noted.

Romanov purportedly refers to a plot to kill Duterte. This narrative ties directly to the death threat video, wherein Duterte says she has tapped an assassin to kill President Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez in case she gets slain.

But for Tolosa, the more important question is whether or not it was proper for the Vice President to issue threats to kill the President--in a record virtual press conference no less--just because she felt her family’s lives were in danger.

Solon-prosecutor San Juan City lone district Rep. Ysabel Maria Zamora says the Oplan Romanov issue has only brought confusion to the ongoing trial since it was not based on any concrete evidence.

“Litong lito kami sa Romanov na ‘yan e. Tignan na lang natin ang pagkakakilanlan sa ating President, sa kanyang pamilya, I don’t think that anyone would think that these words relating to assassination, massacre, all of that would come from the First Family.

(We are completely confused about that Romanov. Just look at the identity of our President and his family—I don’t think anyone would believe that words about assassination, massacre, all of that would come from the first family.)

"Kathang isip ito ng kabilang partido dahil wala naman napatunayan na may ganoong ng plot sa kanila,” Zamora said.

(This is a fabrication of the other side because nothing has been proven that such a plot exists against them.)

For his part, ACT Teachers Party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio pointed out the internal contradiction in the defense's argument: they claim there is no proof Duterte contracted a killer, yet she herself has explicitly stated in the video that she did.

"Ang sariling salita niya ang pinakamatibay na ebidensya laban sa kanya. Ang Defense ay gusto pang ipakita na biktima siya, pero walang alibi na makakapag-justify sa ganitong tipo ng banta. Krimen ito na grave threats," he said.

(Her own words are the strongest evidence against him. The Defense wants to show that she is a victim, but there is no alibi that can justify this kind of threat. This is the crime of grave threats.)

The militant solon continued: "Para sa Defense, mababang paglabag lang ito, hindi impeachable offense (For the Defense, this is just a minor violation, not an impeachable offense). But issuing death threats against a sitting president is a grave crime and an attack on life. No country would accept this as being normal."

During the first week of the impeachment trial of the Vice President, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) senior agent John Mark Calilung, who was presented as the prosecution’s first witness, stated that the threats made by Duterte against the President were “absolute".

Calilung authenticated the videos of the Vice President wherein she uttered the threats against President Marcos and other members of the First Family.