The House prosecution panel on Saturday countered Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense that her apparent threat against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is protected by free speech, emphasizing that constitutional liberties have boundaries and that the Senate impeachment court must make the final determination.
Lanao del Sur 1st District Representative Zia Alonto Adiong, speaking for the prosecution panel, addressed the issue after Duterte’s defense team submitted a response arguing her remarks were shielded by constitutional guarantees.
Adiong pushed back against the notion of unrestricted liberties during a media forum in Quezon City.
“You know, all lawyers would agree that there’s no such thing as absolute freedom. All freedoms are also subject to some regulation,” Adiong said during the Saturday News Forum at Dapo Restaurant in Quezon City.
“One cannot go around the streets accusing anybody of something without the necessary consequence of that action, either verbally or acted upon,” he added.
The controversy stems from a November 2024 online broadcast where Duterte claimed she had arranged for an individual to assassinate President Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez if a rumored plot against her life succeeded.
While Duterte later described her comments as “no joke,” the statements triggered legislative investigations and ultimately formed part of the Articles of Impeachment passed by the House of Representatives.
Adiong argued that the legal focus should center on the psychological and real-world impact of the threat rather than just the rhetoric itself.
“It’s not actually her utterance that should be focused on. It’s the effect of that utterance on the person that is being threatened,” he said.
The lawmaker further highlighted that the Vice President herself emphasized the gravity of her statement.
“She herself qualified the degree of threat by actually saying these words. Siya mismo ang nagsabi: ‘no joke, no joke,’” Alonto Adiong said.
“So, it’s for the court’s appreciation. That’s why we have forwarded this to the Senate, so that the Senate, acting as impeachment court, can actually and finally settle whether our claim in our allegation that this is indeed constitute betrayal of public trust, this would constitute high crimes.”