VP Sara Duterte's kill remark vs. Marcos a 'response,' not a threat, says Defense

The defense team of Vice President Sara Duterte on Tuesday argued that her assertion that she had spoken with someone to kill the President was just a response to a question and not a threat.
On the fifth day of the impeachment trial against Duterte, defense lawyer Mark Vinluan continued his cross-examination of NBI Regional Director in the Bangsamoro Region Jeremy Lotoc.
Lotoc, the second witness of the House prosecution panel, was tapped to testify on Article IV of the Articles of Impeachment, which concerns the alleged threats and assassination plot targeting President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
Lotoc previously served as chief of the NBI Cybercrime Division, which investigated Duterte's late-night online press conference in November 2024, during which she said that she had contracted someone to kill Marcos, the First Lady, and Romualdez should she herself be killed.
According to Vinluan, Duterte’s remarks during the media briefing could not be considered “threats” but merely responses.
“It is our position that the statements made by the Vice President were not threats in the first place. That’s why we were categorizing it as a mere response to a question and answer,” he said.
“It was never aimed directly at the President, First Lady, and the former Speaker. In other words, had they not watched the video, they wouldn't have known about it. In other words, your Honor, there was no threats to begin with and even the discussion on the elements is not applicable insofar as determining the innocence or guilt of the Vice President,” Vinluan added.
He also pressed the NBI official if grave threats and inciting to sedition are considered felonies. Lotoc was also asked if the charges qualify as impeachable offenses.
“If you mean impeachable offenses, whether or not magka-qualify ba siya as betrayal of public trust, it’s the appreciation of the judges, your Honor. Wala po sa amin,” Lotoc said.
(If you are asking if the charges were impeachable offenses and may qualify as betrayal of public trust, it’s up to the appreciation of the judges, your Honor. Not from the NBI.)
Meanwhile, Senator-judge Vicente “Tito” Sotto III sought clarification on the charges filed against Duterte before the impeachment court.
“Naliligaw ako..sa discussion ng grave threats and inciting to sedition. Hindi ba sa regular courts naka-charge yun, Mr. Witness?” said Sotto.
(I am lost on our discussion on grave threats and inciting to sedition. Isn’t it filed in regular courts?)
Lotoc answered in the affirmative.
"Pero sa regular courts 'yun fini-file diba? Ang naka-file dito sa impeachment court ay betrayal of public trust diba tsaka other high crimes? Hindi grave threats at inciting to sedition?” Sotto said.
(What is filed before the impeachment court is betrayal of public trust and other high crimes and not grave threats and inciting to sedition?)
“Pero hindi 'yun ang main charge diba? Betrayal of public trust? Kasi naliligaw ako eh," he added.
(But that’s the main charge, right? Betrayal of public trust? I am lost.) — BM, GMA News

Facts Only

* Vice President Sara Duterte argued her assertion was a response to a question, not a threat.
* Defense lawyer Mark Vinluan cross-examined NBI Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc.
* Lotoc testified regarding Article IV of the Articles of Impeachment concerning alleged threats and assassination plots targeting President Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
* Lotoc previously served as chief of the NBI Cybercrime Division.
* Duterte mentioned contracting someone to kill Marcos, the First Lady, and Romualdez should she be killed during a late-night online press conference in November 2024.
* Vinluan posited that Duterte’s remarks were merely responses to questions, not threats aimed directly at the targets.
* Lotoc stated that determining if the charges qualify as betrayal of public trust depends on the appreciation of the judges, not the NBI.
* Senator Sotto III inquired whether grave threats and inciting to sedition are filed in regular courts or impeachment court.
* Lotoc affirmed that what is filed in the impeachment court is betrayal of public trust and other high crimes, not grave threats or inciting to sedition.

Executive Summary

The defense team for Vice President Sara Duterte argued that her assertion regarding speaking with someone to kill the President was a response to a question, not an actual threat. This argument was presented during cross-examination of NBI Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc, who testified as a witness on Article IV of the Articles of Impeachment concerning alleged threats targeting President Marcos Jr., his First Lady, and former Speaker Romualdez. The defense contended that Duterte’s statements were merely reactions to inquiries and not direct threats, further asserting that the remarks were not aimed directly at the targeted individuals and therefore did not meet the criteria for threat assessment under the discussion elements of the impeachment.
Further proceedings involved clarification sought by Senator Vicente Sotto III regarding the charges against Duterte, specifically questioning whether grave threats and inciting to sedition were filed in regular courts or the impeachment court concerning betrayal of public trust. The NBI official confirmed that the charges before the impeachment court are considered betrayal of public trust and other high crimes, not grave threats or inciting to sedition, according to Lotoc’s testimony.

Full Take

The dynamic presented involves a dispute over legal categorization: whether specific statements constitute actionable threats versus mere reactive commentary during an impeachment proceeding. The core tension lies between the speaker’s intent (a response) and the perceived implication of the content (a threat). This process highlights how legal mechanisms frame speech—shifting the focus from the literal content to adjudicating moral culpability via judicial discretion, as Lotoc indicated regarding "betrayal of public trust." The system itself appears layered, separating initial criminal proceedings from impeachment inquiries, leading to an uncertainty about which legal standard applies to certain categories of alleged actions. The fact that the prosecution and defense are grappling over whether these statements fit specific charges like grave threats reveals a friction point in how political rhetoric is translated into prosecutable offenses. The implication for public discourse is that perceived intent is secondary to formal legal classification, leaving the burden on judicial interpretation to establish guilt or innocence regarding deeply sensitive claims made during high-stakes political events.