“More than her threats against Marcos, VP Sara must be held accountable for the cavalier way her office has handled public funds.”
Throughout his presidency, Rodrigo Duterte frequently employed hyperbole in his speeches, a practice noted by his former legal adviser, Salvador Panelo. Panelo and then-presidential spokesman, lawyer Harry Roque, would often excuse Duterte’s statements, like his threat to throw corrupt officials from a helicopter, as exaggerations and not intended to be taken literally. His spokesperson would explain his controversial statements as a tool to capture attention and underscore the seriousness of an issue.
Duterte’s statements about killing drug addicts are frequently cited as examples of his hyperbolic rhetoric. He has made several controversial remarks, such as comparing himself to Hitler and expressing a willingness to “slaughter” millions of drug addicts.
Now, these threats would have been considered empty and the rantings of an old man if no one gets killed. Yet, we all know that because of these statements by the president, people did get killed, so much so that the International Criminal Court thought it best to initiate a case against the former president for crimes against humanity.
Now here comes the former president’s daughter, Sara Duterte who, like her father, also has the penchant of blurting out controversial off-the-cuff statements. In one interview, Vice President Sara Duterte threatened to exhume the remains of President Marcos Sr. and throw it in the West Philippine Sea. If not for the revolting nature of the threat, this can be dismissed as another ill-thought-of statement by an irate person. For all our faults as a people, we do not, by any stretch of imagination, malign the memory of the dead. This is considered highly disrespectful and offensive, repugnant to our sensibilities, as the deceased cannot defend themselves against such calumny no matter how controversial the deceased might be.
The VP cannot seem to control her temper. She goes berserk against political enemies, imagined or real. This time, she made public threats against the President, the first Lady and Speaker Martin Romualdez. The VP said she had contracted an assassin to kill those three if she herself is killed, and warned the threat was not a joke.
Surely, there is truth in the proverb: “Don’t give in to worry or anger; it only leads to trouble.”
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) has taken these threats seriously and issued a subpoena for Duterte to explain her side. President Marcos described the threats as a criminal plot and vowed to uphold the rule of law. This situation has escalated tensions between the two leaders and raised significant security concerns.
The Vice President later said that her alleged assassination remark against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. was “maliciously taken out of logical context.” This is a clear and unmistakable afterthought which does not merit an iota of consideration.
There is a growing consensus among legal experts that the VP may be liable for a slew of criminal cases including grave threats, violation of the Anti-Terror Law, plunder, if warranted, and disbarment, not to mention impeachment.
We need to emphasize that while the President enjoys immunity from suit during his term, this protection does not extend to the Vice President. Legal experts and constitutional law scholars have clarified that only the President is immune from suit, as this is not explicitly stated in the 1987 Constitution but is recognized in prevailing jurisprudence. Therefore, the Vice President can be charged and held accountable for any legal violations while in office.
Indeed, a vice president is impeachable but not immune from suit. In David vs Arroyo, the Supreme Court ruled that only the President enjoys immunity from suit during their tenure. This immunity is not explicitly stated in the 1987 Constitution but is recognized in prevailing jurisprudence.
The Vice President, however, does not have the same immunity. This means that the Vice President can be held accountable and sued for any legal violations while in office.
More than her threats against Marcos, VP Sara must be held accountable for the cavalier way her office has handled public funds. It reeks of graft and corruption — or at the very least gross negligence. Take note that graft and corruption is explicitly a ground for impeachment as well as a crime under the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and other laws.
Whether the VP is convicted or acquitted in an impeachment trial before the Senate is another matter altogether. An impeachment trial, being a political process more than a judicial one, will be determined by the composition of the Senate as an impeachment body.
The question is: Is there sufficient number to convict or not? Some say that the impeachment process should be initiated after the midterm elections when the political clime, particularly in the Senate, becomes more favorable.
As for criminal actions, the wheels are turning starting with the investigation of the National Bureau of Investigation.
