A procedural dispute disrupted the second day of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial after senators accused a private prosecutor of prematurely delivering a closing argument.
The conflict began when Senator Risa Hontiveros asked private prosecutor Amando Virgil Ligutan to explain how the Vice President’s alleged threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. constituted grounds for impeachment.
The prosecution’s case relies on testimony from NBI agent John Mark Calilung regarding Duterte’s October 18, 2024, remarks, where she described imagining the “beheading” of the President and threatening to exhume the late Ferdinand Marcos Sr.’s remains.
They also presented evidence from a November 23, 2024, press briefing where Duterte claimed she ordered an associate to assassinate the President, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and Speaker Martin Romualdez if she herself were killed.
Answering Hontiveros, Ligutan claimed that the Vice President’s actions were unprecedented.
”Even without going into a question: ‘Is that a criminal act?’ That act, 110 percent sure, betrayed the public trust that the Vice President got in the previous elections,” he asserted.
Senate President and Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero quickly intervened, noting that the response touched upon the ultimate verdict of the trial. To ensure balance, Escudero granted the defense equal time to argue why the actions were not impeachable, while issuing a warning to the prosecution.
”Statements were made by the counsel of the prosecutor that are conclusions of fact and law already, which should be taken upon advisement of the Impeachment Court,” Escudero said.
Senator Pia Cayetano expressed sharp criticism, accusing Ligutan of exploiting the court’s leniency to deliver a summation.
”Because it is not right. We must follow the rules, and I know you are being courteous to all of us, but that was a closing statement,” she said, later adding, “Do not take advantage of the generosity of this impeachment court.”
Cayetano moved to expunge the prosecutor’s remarks from the record, a motion Escudero deferred for later review.
Hontiveros later clarified that her question was only meant to gauge the relevance of the evidence to the Articles of Impeachment, noting that the prosecution has yet to prove a finalized assassination contract existed.