A kill ‘plan’

On July 2, 2018, Tanauan mayor Antonio Halili was standing at attention as he led the weekly morning flag raising on the city hall grounds when a shot rang out.

Halili was hit in the chest and died minutes later in a nearby hospital. A probe showed that the fatal shot came from a rifle that was fired from a grassy elevation about 77 meters away.

On the night of Dec. 3, 2020, Los Baños mayor Caesar Perez was taking a stroll in the municipal hall compound after getting a massage when two shots rang out, fatally hitting him in the head and chest.

In October 2024, Royina Garma told the House quad committee that a “Major Albotra” had boasted about being part of the team that killed Halili. The panel summoned police Capt. Kenneth Paul Albotra, who denied involvement and was ordered detained by the House for lying. Albotra denied the accusations and later continued serving in the police.

A former opposition councilor, Norvin Tamisin, was arrested in November 2021 in what probers said was a politically motivated murder of Perez. But Tamisin, who was released on bail after several months in detention, told the House quad committee in 2024 that he was framed.

The two mayors have one thing in common: they were on the so-called narco list of then president Rodrigo Duterte. Halili was assassinated despite making a show of parading through the city suspected drug dealers in Tanauan after he was named in the narco list.

In both cases, the snipers remain at large and the masterminds unknown. In terms of marksmanship, the one who shot Halili was particularly impressive.

Since this sniper is still unidentified and at large, he can kill again. But who ordered the hit on Halili?

Suspicion naturally focused on Duterte’s minions – either following direct orders from Malacañang, or else trying to earn brownie points with him.

Such cases have been cited to illustrate why Rodrigo Duterte’s pronouncements about killing narcos could not be dismissed as mere hyperbole or boastful rhetoric.

*      *      *

This penchant for bloodshed long associated with the Dutertes is now also being cited as a reason why the statements made by Vice President Sara Duterte about having President Marcos, his wife and cousin assassinated if she herself would be killed cannot be dismissed as mere wish ko lang, uttered in anger.

The probe being conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation on what NBI chief Melvin Matibag has said was not just an assassination threat but a “plan” is a sideshow that has somewhat eased the tedium of watching the VP’s impeachment trial.

To my non-lawyer’s mind, however, this issue, while interesting, is extraneous to the main business of the trial, which is to determine if the VP’s cuss-filled kill rant, livestreamed for all to see, showed Duterte to be unfit for her post and deserving of ouster and permanent prohibition from public office.

In a country where civility and common sense rule, the answer should be obvious. Not so in our country, where the realistic answer to that question is, it depends – on political alliances, and on personal interests.

After eight days devoted to the issue of grave threats, the same question is being asked by the VP’s constituency: maybe she’s uncouth and her mouth needs rinsing with soap, and she can come off unhinged under stress. So what?

As the Prison University alumnus likes to point out, 32 million people voted for Sara Duterte, even after she publicly slugged that sheriff in Davao City. The prosecution presented the sheriff’s case to bolster its argument about a pattern of violence in the VP. But violence is an intrinsic characteristic of the Duterte brand, and voters still went overwhelmingly for Inday Sara.

Legal experts have said there is no specific level of evidence requirement for conviction in an impeachment trial. Guilt need not be established beyond reasonable doubt. Ultimately, it boils down to each senator-judge’s appreciation of what has been presented, and whether it warrants voting for conviction and removal from office.

In the current Senate, a conscience vote can be a problem for those seeking public accountability.

*      *      *

In the meantime, the trial for Impeachment Article 4 has created a spin-off: what the NBI believes is an active plot to assassinate BBM, wife Liza and former speaker Martin Romualdez.

This is an ongoing criminal investigation and Article 4 can stand on its own without minute scrutiny of the probe details. Matibag has already sufficiently explained why the NBI could not take the assassination threat lightly. He said nearly 20 “persons of interest” are being eyed as the possible hitman, including members of the VP’s security group.

The violence attached to the Duterte brand is precisely what made the NBI take the kill threat seriously.

Matibag has pointed out that the source of the threat has the capability to carry it out, a motivation, and a direct beneficiary in case BBM is killed: VP Sara, the constitutional successor, automatically takes over as president.

If she becomes president, the impeachment process goes back to square one; if the House still has the appetite for it, she will have to be impeached as the new chief executive.

The VP camp has insisted that her kill rant must not be taken seriously. But because of her family’s bloody track record, people think the more truthful declaration was provided by the VP in her meltdown video – that her contracting of someone to kill BBM was “no joke, no joke.”