Out on bail

Just for the optics, some folks thought Vice President Sara Duterte would have allowed herself to be arrested and detained over the weekend, waiting for Monday to post bail for the grave threats case.

It would have reinforced her victimhood narrative, what with the warrant for her arrest being issued by the Quezon City Regional Trial Court just two hours before the close of office hours on a Friday.

This used to be a common harassment tactic of those with the right connections in court – having someone arrested late Friday, and compelling a weekend stay in jail.

But neither the Philippine National Police nor the National Bureau of Investigation enforced the arrest warrant, even if (according to Interior Secretary Jonvic Remulla) they knew where the VP was.

NBI Director Melvin Matibag also stressed that bail can now be posted even late on Friday night or on Saturdays.

The VP, saying she was concerned about her personal safety if detained, posted on Saturday morning a total of P360,000 for her temporary liberty on three counts of grave threats.

This was over her rant in 2024 that there was a plot to assassinate her, so she had contracted someone (no joke, no joke) to kill President Marcos, his wife Liza and cousin Martin Romualdez in case the plot succeeded.

She didn’t trust the courts or the police to protect her while in jail so she posted bail, said the VP who has about 400 state forces in her security group.

While her statements smacked of emo, considering the human rights records of both the Marcos and Duterte clans plus their current capabilities for extreme mischief, it’s not entirely farfetched that their members might be seriously considering taking out each other before 2028.

The only reason they’re not being encouraged by the peanut gallery to do so is because it will guarantee chaos, and isn’t the nation already in deep enough manure?

*      *      *

Malacañang issued the expected statements about bowing to the judiciary, a branch that is (supposedly) co-equal and independent.

Of course it didn’t dispel the belief of the VP’s camp that the Marcos administration is pulling out all the stops to eliminate her from the 2028 presidential race, where she continues to be the frontrunner based on surveys.

This is the purpose of the ongoing impeachment trial, the VP’s camp laments. But it goes without saying that any impeachment is premised on the accusation that the impeached official is unfit for the position and must be permanently barred from holding any post in government.

While acknowledging the arrest warrant and posting bail, Inday Sara’s camp is claiming that like the president, the VP enjoys immunity from suit while in office.

I don’t see such immunity for the VP anywhere in the Constitution. For that matter, neither is the presidential immunity from suit. This provision was in the 1973 Charter passed during the Marcos dictatorship, which was not carried over to the 1987 Constitution.

But the Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle of immunity in a ruling in 1986 when the 1987 Constitution was still being drafted. The case involved Corazon Aquino as president of the post-EDSA revolutionary government. This SC ruling on presidential immunity from suit during tenure was reaffirmed in cases involving Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo when she was president and Joseph Estrada following his ouster through EDSA Dos.

As far as I know, there is no such jurisprudence covering vice presidents.

*      *      *

The VP’s camp is also questioning the timing of the filing of the criminal complaint in court nearly two years after her rant was delivered.

Matibag explained that it took time to build up the case, which the NBI did under his predecessor Jaime Santiago, and to forward it to the Department of Justice for preliminary investigation before filing in court.

Prosecutors stress that there is no prohibition on conducting criminal proceedings simultaneously with the impeachment trial of the same official. They argue that if an official facing an impeachment trial commits murder, for example, should the official be spared from criminal prosecution before regular courts?

Others see the criminal indictment as a fallback in case the prosecution fails to secure the 16 Senate votes needed (according to the impeachment court presiding officer) to convict the VP and bar her permanently from public office.

That magic number may be challenged by the Senate majority and may end up in the SC. Or, if the Marites grapevine is accurate, the 16 votes (possibly more) are already in the bag, with the Article of Impeachment on unexplained wealth merely the icing on the cake for conviction.

In case the VP is acquitted by the impeachment court, only final conviction by the SC can prevent her from running for president in 2028. It would be a miracle if the wheels of Philippine justice could turn that swiftly, although the courts can argue that this is a special case involving the Vice President and therefore deserves speedy action.

While the timing of the criminal indictment may be truly incidental to the ongoing impeachment trial, it is fueling the DDS narrative that the Marcos forces are moving, by fair means or foul, to eliminate the VP from the 2028 race.

It heightens the pressure on the impeachment prosecutors to convince the nation that Sara Duterte does not deserve her position, and must be barred forever from holding any public office.