CAGAYAN DE ORO — Grave threats cannot be used as justification.
Human rights lawyer and former lawmaker Carlos Isagani Zarate made this remark in response to the statement of the defense team of Vice President Sara Duterte during the third day of the impeachment trial on Wednesday, July 8, saying that Sara and her family were threatened, making her threats against high-ranking government officials “justified.”
What the Vice President should do after receiving such threats, Zarate pointed out, is to file a complaint or call for an investigation instead.
“It remains unjustifiable no matter the extent of the so-called oppression that is happening. That’s unacceptable, especially from a high-ranking official like Vice President Sara Duterte,” Zarate said in Filipino during the Bantay Impeachment program of the People’s Alternative Media Network (Altermidya).
Read: Progressives call for VP Sara’s conviction
Defense’s statement was issued after cross-examining the first witness, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Senior Agent John Mark Calilung, who investigated the November 2024 virtual press briefing, where Sara made utterances about contracting someone to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
It took two trial hearings to examine the witness, with questions about his credibility, how he authenticated the online media briefing, and the investigation he conducted.
Ephraim Cortez, president of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL), said in an interview with Bilyonaryo that the video authentication should have been settled in the pre-trial, especially that the defense, in its closing remarks on July 8, gave justification to the threats, but it did not mention that the Vice President did not make such threats.
Members of progressive groups earlier stressed that Sara’s assassination threats were difficult to refute, as these were seen by many Filipinos.
Read: VP Sara’s assassination threats notable, difficult to refute
Constitutional law professor Dan Gatmaytan told One News PH in an interview in April that Sara committed grave threats because of the statements she made, whether the condition is present or not.
Still two-thirds
Multisectoral group Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), on the other hand, questioned the Senate impeachment court’s decision to retain the 16 votes needed for conviction, saying it undermines the credibility and integrity of the impeachment proceedings.
“An impeachment trial is a constitutional proceeding where senator-judges are duty-bound to hear the evidence, observe the demeanor of witnesses, question them, examine the evidence, participate in discussions on legal and factual issues, and render an informed judgment based on these,” the group pointed out.
When the trial commenced on July 6, Senate impeachment presiding officer Sen. Chiz Escudero ruled that the impeachment court will abide by Article XI, Section 3(6) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which states that no impeachable official shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds (16 members) of all Senate members. However, he said those who disagree can seek judicial relief.
Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta have been detained for plunder charges, while Bato Dela Rosa, who has an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC), is still in hiding.
Allowing detained senators to participate in the impeachment trial as senator-judges was proposed, but it has not yet been decided.
“Justice requires not only impartiality but informed judgment. A court that allows judges who did not fully hear a case to decide its outcome compromises the integrity of its own verdict,” Bayan added.
The multisectoral alliance urged the Senate impeachment court to reconsider its decision and only allow senator-judges who have fully participated in the trial to vote on the verdict.
Save as PDF