The House prosecution panel will prioritize the allegations surrounding Vice President Sara Duterte’s alleged death threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., labeling the issue as a direct assault on the nation’s democracy.
Batangas 2nd District Representative Gerville Luistro, the lead prosecutor, announced that the panel will lead with Article IV of the impeachment complaint. This article centers on Duterte’s November 2024 public remarks, where she asserted she had hired an assassin to eliminate President Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez if a supposed plot against her succeeded, clarifying at the time that her statements were “no joke.”
According to Luistro, the presentation of Article IV will demonstrate a culpable violation of the Constitution, high crimes, and a betrayal of public trust.
“Among all allegations before this court, none strikes more directly at the heart of constitutional order than this one. Ito na po ang pinakamatindi, and unlike in many cases, which depends upon competing accounts, this evidence comes substantially from the respondent’s own recorded public statements,” she said.
Luistro emphasized that while political rivalry and criticism are natural elements of a democratic system, the introduction of violence crosses a dangerous line.
“Sa kasaysayan ng ating Republika, walang vice-presidente na may kaibigan na hitman. Ngayon lang. Walang vice-presidente na nagpapapatay ng Pangulo. Ngayon lang. Walang vice-presidente na handang magpapatay para lamang makaupo sa pwesto. Ngayon lang,” she said.
The lead prosecutor maintained that the 1987 Constitution provides peaceful mechanisms to navigate political disagreements, such as elections, legislation, and judicial reviews, but strictly forbids threats and lawlessness from government leaders.
“The Constitution provides many means on how to resolve political conflict, election, legislation, public debate, judicial review, and even impeachment. But it does not permit threats. It does not permit violence. It does not permit people entrusted with power to place themselves above constitutional restraints,” Luistro added.
Stressing the core principle of public accountability, Luistro reminded the court that state power is merely loaned by the citizens to their leaders.
“The Constitution’s answer is very clear. Power belongs to the people. Public office is merely borrowed, and every borrowed power carries with it the obligation to account for its use,” she said.
She argued that high-ranking officials should not be exempted from scrutiny, noting that if ordinary citizens and lower-level government workers are bound by the law, the same standard must apply to the vice president.
“If a barangay treasurer must account for public funds, then so must the vice-president. If an ordinary public servant can be investigated, then so can the highest officials of the government. If ordinary citizen is expected to obey the rules, then surely those who govern them must obey them first.”
Luistro concluded by warning against creating a double standard of justice that shields the powerful while penalizing the weak.
“Otherwise, what lessons do we teach our children? That there is law for the powerful and another for everyone else? That accountability exist only for the weak? That public office grants immunity against accountability?” Luistro asked.