On the third day of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, defense counsel Mark Vinluan asserted that the House prosecution had effectively conceded it lacks evidence that Duterte hired or contracted an assassin. This, he argued, undermines one of the central allegations in the impeachment complaint.
Prosecution's own witness fails to prove contract killing
Vinluan pointed to the testimony of National Bureau of Investigation Senior Agent Victor Calilung, stating that it did not prove Duterte contracted a killer. He said the prosecution's evidence was insufficient and a waste of the court's time and public funds. Vinluan emphasized that Duterte herself said she did not speak to an assassin, and the term was taken out of context.
“The testimony of [Calilung], like the prosecution's other so-called evidence, is not enough to prove this allegation. Trying to prove this stretch narrative using a hodgepodge of materials is a waste of this honorable court's time and the Filipino people's money. Si VP Sara na mismo ang nagsabi na hindi assassin ang kinausap niya. This term only came from people who took her statements out of their proper context and tried to exaggerate them for what they really meant,” Vinluan said.
Context of threats against Duterte
Vinluan argued that Duterte's statements during the November 23, 2024 online press conference should be viewed in light of real threats against her and her family. He referenced “Operation Romanov,” an alleged plot to eliminate Duterte and her family members. Vinluan noted that NBI records mention discussions about this operation, and the press conference included references to it.
The defense also alleged that Duterte was subjected to unauthorized intelligence and surveillance operations. Her residences in Davao City and Metro Manila were profiled, trusted security personnel were removed, and details of her official engagements were leaked, compromising her security.
Given these circumstances, Vinluan argued that Duterte's remarks were made not as Vice President but as “a wife, mother, daughter, and sister” concerned about protecting her family.
Prosecution's 'culmination' misinterpreted
“In sum, the prosecution was right in using the term culmination, but the prosecution's interpretation is wrong. Rather, when VP Sara left the administration, she suffered various forms of threats and harassment for many months from the powers that be and the culmination was her statement on that fateful early morning in November 2024,” Vinluan said. “She didn't commit an impeachable offense. She drew the line in the sand and said, enough is enough. That is the meaning and that is the context.”
Allegations not impeachable offenses
Vinluan maintained that allegations of grave threats and inciting to sedition do not constitute impeachable offenses under the Constitution. Both are defined under the Revised Penal Code and punishable by prisión correccional, making them offenses ordinarily tried by first-level courts. He also rejected accusations that Duterte incited sedition or betrayed public trust.
“There was no betrayal of public trust. She actually upheld the people's trust as she spoke for and on behalf of the people,” Vinluan added.
