House impeachment prosecutor and San Juan City Rep. Ysabel Zamora clarified that the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte is not a criminal prosecution for grave threats, but a constitutional proceeding to determine whether she committed impeachable offenses.
Speaking after the third day of the trial, Zamora said the Senate impeachment court must decide whether Duterte’s actions amounted to betrayal of public trust, high crimes, and culpable violation of the Constitution.
“At the end of the day, dapat natin matandaan na hindi naman tayo nagpo-prosecute ng isang criminal case. Hindi tayo nagpo-prosecute ng grave threats,” Zamora said.
Zamora, one of the prosecutors assigned to Article IV of the impeachment articles, issued the statement in response to the defense’s repeated argument that prosecutors have no evidence showing Duterte entered into a contract or agreement with an assassin to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.
She said the defense may raise that argument, but stressed that the impeachment court is not trying Duterte for the criminal offense of grave threats under the Revised Penal Code.
The prosecution’s first witness, National Bureau of Investigation Senior Agent John Mark Calilung, earlier testified on the authentication of Duterte’s November 23, 2024 video statement, where she allegedly threatened Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez.
In the video, Duterte allegedly said she would have the three killed if she were killed. She also allegedly said she was not joking and had already spoken to someone to carry out her instructions.
Zamora said criminal cases require proof of the specific elements of an offense, while impeachment proceedings are governed by a broader constitutional standard.
“Sa isang criminal case, kailangan mo ng elemento, ’yung mga elemento ng isang krimen. Pero dito po, ano ba ’yung pinoprosecute natin? ’Yung impeachable offenses of betrayal of public trust, high crimes, and culpable violation of the Constitution,” she said.
According to Zamora, Article IV asks whether Duterte’s public statements and conduct on November 23, 2024 constituted impeachable offenses, particularly betrayal of public trust, and not whether prosecutors can establish every technical element of grave threats as a criminal charge.
“So tandaan natin na wala naman specific elemento itong mga ’to. Ang sinasabi natin, ang actuations ng Vice President in relation to that November 23, 2024 video ay nagko-constitute ng betrayal of public trust,” Zamora said.
“This is a very general term — betrayal of public trust. So ’wag ho natin tingnan ang specific elements ng isang crime under the Revised Penal Code,” she added.
Former Surigao del Norte Rep. Robert Ace Barbers, an impeachment adviser and prosecution spokesperson, also rejected the defense argument on the supposed absence of a contract between Duterte and an assassin.
Barbers said it would be illogical to expect people allegedly conspiring to commit a crime to execute a written and enforceable agreement.
“Wala pa ako nakitang nangyaring ganun, na kung saan ang isang kriminal ay may kontrata. If indeed the person is an assassin, wala naman sigurong kontrata ’yan, wala naman siguro pipirma,” Barbers said.
“Halimbawa hindi tumupad sa kontrata, dedemanda mo ba siya ng breach of contract? ’Di ba hindi? So honestly, walang kontrata na dapat tingnan among the contracting parties and the party involved,” he added.
Zamora agreed, saying that from a legal standpoint, any contract involving the hiring of an assassin would be void because its purpose would be illegal.
“Well of course, tama ho si Cong Ace, na I’m sure wala pang nakagawa ng may written contract relating to the hiring of an assassin. As lawyers, wala pa tayong nahawakang ganyang kaso,” she said.
“Any contract involving hiring an assassin or involving a killing of a person would be illegal because it involved something that is void, that is illegal. So the contract itself is void,” she added.
Barbers further remarked, “Actually ang follow-up question diyan, kung halimbawa totoo may contract, inonotaryo ba ’yan?”
Zamora said the prosecution’s position remains unchanged regardless of the defense’s claim that there was no contract with an assassin.
“Contract or no contract, it is our position that her utterances made on November 23, 2024 constitute impeachable offenses of betrayal of public trust, high crimes and culpable violation of the Constitution,” Zamora said.