The video of Vice President Sara Duterte’s November 23, 2024 Zoom press conference has become one of the most closely examined pieces of evidence in her impeachment trial.
During the second day of the Senate proceedings, prosecutors played the recording in full to support Article IV of the impeachment complaint, which accuses Duterte of committing grave threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
In the video, Duterte said in Filipino that if she were killed, she had already instructed someone to kill the three officials, adding twice that it was “no joke.”
“Pag pinatay ako, patayin mo si BBM, si Liza Araneta, and Martin Romualdez… No joke, no joke nag bilin na ako, ma’am.”
To authenticate the recording, John Mark Calilung, a digital forensics agent from the National Bureau of Investigation, testified that the bureau preserved and verified the video. He also said the NBI subpoenaed journalists who attended the Zoom briefing, including reporters from Inquirer and Rappler, whose affidavits supported the video’s authenticity.
Before and during the video’s presentation, defense lawyer Carlo Narvasa questioned Calilung’s competence to testify about Meta’s evidence-preservation process and objected to the prosecution’s use of photocopies to authenticate digital evidence.
Throughout the proceedings, however, Senate President and presiding officer Francis Escudero overruled the objections, allowing the video to be admitted into evidence and viewed in full by the impeachment court.
With the video already admitted into evidence, the defense changed from challenging its presentation to explaining its context on the third day of the trial.
Defense counsel Mark Vinluan argued that the prosecution failed to prove that the Vice President actually hired or contracted an assassin to carry out the killings. According to Vinluan, the prosecution’s own evidence establishes only that the video exists and contains Duterte’s statements, not that any assassination plot was ever carried out or even arranged.
Citing Senator-Judge Risa Hontiveros’ observation that “none of these statements are proof that the Vice President actually contracted an assassin or hired one,” defense lawyer Mark Vinluan responded, “She is absolutely right,” arguing that the prosecution itself acknowledged the video only proves Duterte made the statements, not that she actually hired anyone to carry them out.
The defense also argued that the word “assassin” did not come from Duterte herself. According to Vinluan, that description was introduced by others who interpreted or characterized her statements after the press conference.
Instead, the defense urged the impeachment court to view the video in its full context. Vinluan said Duterte spoke as a “wife, mother, daughter, and sister” reacting to what the defense described as threats against her family, including an alleged plot referred to as “Operation Romanov” and concerns involving her chief of staff, Zuleika Lopez.
While acknowledging that Duterte’s remarks were unconventional, the defense maintained they were made in response to what she believed were serious threats.
The defense further argued that even if Duterte’s statements could legally constitute grave threats or another offense under the Revised Penal Code, such allegations should be resolved in regular courts rather than through impeachment.
Their position is that impeachment is reserved for impeachable offenses under the Constitution, and that the prosecution failed to show how the video alone meets that standard.
The prosecution, meanwhile, maintains that Duterte’s recorded statements are crucial to Article IV of the impeachment complaint and argues they demonstrate conduct that warrants impeachment.
As the trial continues, it will be up to the Senate impeachment court to determine what weight should be given to the video, the surrounding circumstances raised by the defense, and whether the evidence satisfies the constitutional standard for an impeachable offense.
