top of page

Defense: VP Duterte's assassination remarks were responses, not threats

The defense team of Vice President Sara Duterte on Tuesday maintained that her controversial remarks about having spoken to someone to kill President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. were responses to a question during a press conference and should not be interpreted as threats.

Paraluman News

July 15, 2026

Defense: VP Duterte's assassination remarks were responses, not threats

A screen grab of a photo of Defense Counsel Mark Vinluan from the Senate Facebook page

The defense team of Vice President Sara Duterte on Tuesday maintained that her controversial remarks about having spoken to someone to kill President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. were responses to a question during a press conference and should not be interpreted as threats.


During the fifth day of Duterte's impeachment trial, defense lawyer Mark Vinluan continued his cross-examination of National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Regional Director for the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM) Jeremy Lotoc, the House prosecution's second witness.


Lotoc previously headed the NBI Cybercrime Division, which investigated Duterte's November 2024 online press conference where she said she had contracted someone to kill Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez if she herself were killed.


Vinluan argued that Duterte's statements were made only in response to a question and did not constitute threats.


“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.


The defense lawyer also asked Lotoc whether grave threats and inciting to sedition are felonies and whether such offenses qualify as impeachable acts.


Lotoc replied that determining whether the alleged acts constitute betrayal of public trust falls within the authority of the impeachment court.


“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.

bottom of page