Deputy Speaker and La Union Rep. Francisco Paolo Ortega V said the House prosecution’s evidence on the impeachment charge accusing Vice President Sara Z. Duterte of making grave threats “spoke loudly,” saying the allegation carried particular weight because it involved an alleged direct threat from one of the country’s highest-ranking officials.
“Napakalakas po ng kahapon, napakalakas po ng sigaw ng ebidensya,” Ortega said in a press briefing, referring to the House prosecution’s first day of presenting evidence before the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.
On Tuesday, the prosecution began presenting evidence on the fourth impeachment article by calling National Bureau of Investigation Senior Agent John Mark Calilung as its first witness.
Calilung authenticated the video recording of Duterte’s Nov. 23, 2024 online briefing, where she said she had contracted someone to kill President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez if she herself were killed.
He also authenticated official statements issued by the NBI, the Philippine National Police, the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and other government agencies, which treated the remarks as a serious security matter.
For Ortega, the evidence presented in support of the grave threats charge had a distinct impact.
“Alam kong equally important ‘yung other articles, pero parang dito talaga, dito talaga may kurot eh, ‘yung sa grave threats,” Ortega said.
“Kasi parang ang hirap namang depensahan nung direct threat na ‘yun, ‘yung open threat, sabi nga nila,” he added.
Ortega said the video was already familiar to many Filipinos even before it was formally introduced in the impeachment proceedings.
He also said many people he had spoken with were disturbed that such statements allegedly came from the country’s second-highest official.
Lawyer Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr., legal spokesperson and counsel for the House prosecutors, defended the prosecution’s decision to present only the portions of the video relevant to the impeachment charge after the defense argued that the entire recording should be played to provide context.
“But as pointed out by Atty. Ligutan yesterday, and which was found to be correct by the presiding officer, discretion ho ng prosecution kung anong parte ng video na yun ang aming ipapakita,” Tolosa said, referring to prosecution counsel Amando Virgil Ligutan’s argument, which impeachment court presiding officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero upheld during the proceedings.
Tolosa said the defense remains free to present the full two-hour recording during cross-examination if it believes doing so would support its case.
He added that the prosecution opposed requiring the impeachment court to watch the full recording during direct examination because it was unnecessary and would take considerable time.