Vice President Sara Duterte’s legal team has asked a Quezon City court to defer the issuance of an arrest warrant while it considers her motion to quash the three grave threats cases filed against her, saying the court must first resolve the defense’s jurisdictional challenge.

Lawyer Paul Lawrence Lim, Duterte’s counsel for the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Grave Threats cases, said deferment of an arrest warrant is among the reliefs sought by the defense in its motion to quash.

“The deferment of arrest warrant is one of the things that we asked from the court,” Lim said in a mix of English and Filipino during a virtual press conference on August 14.

Lim said the defense’s position is anchored on its argument that the court must first determine whether it has jurisdiction over the cases before proceeding with the criminal proceedings.

“And what I can say is that the issuance of a warrant is an exercise of jurisdiction,” he said.

The defense has also asked the court to hear oral arguments on the motion to quash, citing the “far-reaching consequences” of the constitutional and legal questions raised by the cases.

READ: 

Asked whether Duterte would voluntarily surrender if the court rejects her motion to quash and subsequently issues an arrest warrant, Lim declined to commit on behalf of the Vice President.

Lim said the defense has yet to make a final decision on the specific action or remedy it would pursue should the court reject the motion to quash.

“We still don’t have a final decision regarding the actual actions and the available remedies that we have,” Lim said.

“There are a lot of remedies that are available,” he added, noting that these could include surrendering or questioning the court’s order.

“As of now, I cannot say, but all options are being considered,” Lim said.

Lim said the legal team has discussed the possible remedies available to Duterte but would determine which one to pursue depending on the court’s action.

Duterte’s motion to quash seeks the dismissal of the criminal cases before arraignment, with the defense arguing that the court “lacks jurisdiction.”

The cases stem from Duterte’s remarks during a November 2024 online press conference concerning an alleged assassination plot involving President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.

The defense has argued that the cases raise broader constitutional questions concerning the criminal prosecution of a sitting impeachable official.

Lim said the defense’s position is that an “impeachable official may eventually be prosecuted if the official committed a crime, but that such prosecution should take place after the official’s term.”

The defense is also seeking oral arguments on the motion to quash, saying the constitutional and jurisdictional questions at issue have potentially far-reaching implications.

Lim said the defense wants “oral arguments so both sides can fully present their positions on those questions before the court resolves the motion.”

For now, Lim said the legal team is waiting for the court to act on the motion to quash and its request for oral arguments.

The defense will then determine its next legal move based on the court’s ruling, including whether the motion to quash is granted or denied and whether an arrest warrant is eventually issued.

RELATED STORY: