After the July 14 and 15 hearings of the Senate impeachment court, I now conclude:
One, Sara Duterte should revamp her defense legal team. Two of its members have just incriminated her. She is guilty of grave threats and sedition.
Two, the impeachment court will find it difficult and challenging not to convict the Vice President, oust her immediately from office and bar her from holding any public office, elective or appointive, in the future. She is bad, simply bad. If you cannot accept that VP Sara is bad, simply bad, then you have to accept that she is insane, simply insane. Bad or insane – either is bad for the country.
Regional director and NBI CyberCrime Division chief Jeremy Lotoc, the official who led the National Bureau of Investigation’s probe into Sara Duterte’s alleged death threats, told the impeachment court Monday July 13 that, in the bureau’s assessment, she committed a crime. Lotoc backed up the earlier testimony of NBI cybercrime expert John Mark Calilung.
Lotoc validated Sara Duterte’s Nov. 23, 2024 online video press conference in which she disclosed she had hired assassin/s to kill three people – President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., First Lady Louise Araneta Marcos and the former House speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez.
Sara’s threats are real and absolute, Lotoc told the court. She had the “intent, motive and capability” to carry out her alleged threat to kill her three targets.
To prove Sara’s remarks were deliberate rather than a one-off outburst, Lotoc cited two instances – Duterte’s Oct. 18, 2024 press conference, where she said she imagined “cutting his (Marcos’) head,” and her Nov. 23, 2024 remarks, where she declared she did “not recognize anybody above me” and warned the country would “go to hell.” A clip of the October remarks was replayed before the Senate court.
In Exhibit P-4-10, the VP, Lotoc said, was “furious and fuming mad,” and used profanities against the three roughly eight times during the video livestream. The NBI, he said, found her statements “serious” and the threat “real and actual.”
Asked by presiding officer Sen. Chiz Escudero whether there was any basis to charge Sara, Lotoc said the bureau believes Duterte “committed the crime of grave threats and inciting to sedition,” the NBI using the standard of prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction.
The NBI had recommended three counts of grave threats and one count of inciting to sedition against Duterte in a Feb. 10, 2025 affidavit of investigation. The NBI case is airtight, Lotoc told Sen. Erwin Tulfo.
Replying to Sen. Risa Hontiveros, Lotoc rejected the argument that Duterte was merely exercising free speech, saying excusing such remarks as protected expression would invite “anarchy.”
Lotoc told the court that Duterte had allegedly arranged the hit even before her chief of staff Zuleika Lopez was detained at the House for contempt. This is proof the threat was not a spontaneous reaction to that incident but predated it. Lotoc cited Sara’s own words: “Wag ka mag-alala, ma’am, may kinausap na ako.”
What makes Duterte’s words dangerous, Lotoc said, was that they could be “taken advantage of” by other groups. Because Duterte’s instruction was tied to her own death, Lotoc pointed out, harm coming to her could “trigger” her instructions. In the event Duterte was harmed, other groups could stage an attack on Marcos, the First Lady and the former House speaker.
At the July 14 hearing, after defense lawyer Mark Vinluan himself confirmed the authenticity of the “kill them” video, prosecution counsel Atty. Lorna Kapunan informed the court there would be no need to summon Sara’s chief of staff Atty. Zuleika Lopez and security aide Capt. Belinda Bello. The two, as hostile witnesses for the prosecution, would have confirmed they were present when Sara erupted into a rage – captured live on television and beamed around the world.
Deadpanned Kapunan: “After evaluating through these two witnesses, 19 documentary evidence from (NBI) Agent (John Mark) Calilung and 45 documentary evidence from our recent witness, Atty. Lotoc. And after the very clarificatory and probing questions of our senator-judges, after evaluation and not only during this five-minute hurdle. It is the wisdom of the public prosecutors, as expressed through this representation, that we find it totally unnecessary, redundant and a surplusage to still present Atty. Zuleika Lopez, as well, Capt. Belinda Bello.”
Lorna told the court defense lawyer Mark Vinluan himself had admitted Exhibit P-4-10. Vinluan “in his closing remarks, or opening remarks, mentioned more than 10 times that the press conference occurred, (and that) Atty. Zuleika and the Vice President were there.” At least seven different clips of Duterte shouting profanities during her infamous Zoom press conference were played before the court July 13.
“He (Vinluan) says that the Vice President did not act as Vice President when she made those utterances,” Kapunan told the court. “He attempted to give a humane picture to the Vice President, that she had reacted as a mother, sister or brother? No. And that she was not reacting in her capacity as Vice President. But in that statement, there was admission as to the utterances being made more than 10 times.”
Why would Zuleika’s presence at the trial now be totally unnecessary? “Because the defense themselves used the very same video, said exhibit, in their defense when they showed Atty. Zuleika is crying and allegedly complaining about the violation of our human rights,” Kapunan said, concluding:
“We are not a criminal court, and much time has been spent. Is there a grave threat? Is there incitement to sedition? All of this is relevant, but in the context, is it by doing these grave threats and by inciting to sedition that the Vice President is a violator of the Constitution? Does it make her a violator of her solemn oath of office? Is this a high crime? Is this a betrayal of public trust? That is what this impeachment (trial) is all about.”
* * *
Email: biznewsasia@gmail.com