Palace: Protecting politicians despite evidence is betrayal

Palace: Protecting politicians despite evidence is betrayal MANILA, Philippines — Protecting a politician despite overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing constitutes a “betrayal” of the people, Malacañang said yesterday, as it maintained that Vice President Sara Duterte issued a “grave threat” against President Marcos. Palace press officer Claire Castro said the impeachment trial of Duterte, who is being accused of plotting to kill Marcos and engaging in corruption, should be in line with existing rules and decided upon based on evidence. She said deciding on Duterte’s case based on evidence and in accordance with the rules “is for the people and is not intended to save a politician…” Castro maintained that the executive branch would keep its hands off the impeachment trial because of separation of powers, but would continue to answer matters that involve the President. “If the issue involves the President and it needs to be responded to with facts, we will do that. We will explain to the people the issues about the President, we will update them and we will tell the truth,” Castro added. The first few sessions of the impeachment trial of Duterte tackled her alleged involvement in a supposed plot to kill Marcos, First Lady Liza Marcos and former speaker Martin Romualdez. The accusation stemmed from the Vice President’s remarks at an online press conference that she had asked someone to kill the three should an alleged plot to assassinate her succeed. During the trial, Duterte’s defense team argued that she stated those words not as the Vice President but as a wife, mother, daughter and sister, who only wanted to protect herself and her family. The defense panel also claimed that an operation called “Romanov” was “in place” and the threat against the lives of Duterte and her family was “real.” “We cannot separate her being Vice President from her being a mother. A threat is a threat, whoever you are, if you threaten the President, even if you are a mother, a Vice President, it doesn’t make any difference,” Castro said. No offense In an interview with One News, former chief presidential legal counsel Salvador Panelo said the Vice President’s statements should not be viewed as an impeachable offense, describing them as a reaction to a threat against her life. But Castro disputed this, saying Duterte’s alleged kill order was not hypothetical. “This is not manufactured by imagination. This is not a fantasy. It was stated by the Vice President herself and she did not deny it,” the Palace press officer said. With regard to the claim that the statement was conditional, Castro said the ruling on the Caluag versus People case states that “in grave threats, the wrong threatened, which amounts to a crime, may or may not be accompanied by a condition.” She said under Article 282, there are two forms of committing grave threats: when the implication of the threat upon the person, owner or property or the family of a person is coupled with condition; and, when the alleged threatening act or remark is not subject to a condition. Castro also reacted to the move of Duterte’s lawyers to justify the Vice President’s reaction by citing the supposed injustice done to her chief of staff, Zuleika Lopez, by the House of Representatives. “You cannot and you will not justify something if you did not commit any act. They (defense panel) are justifying the action, saying it was committed because of the alleged incidents involving attorney Zuleika Lopez. There was an admission about the threat against the life of the President,” the Palace press officer added. No evidence on ‘Romanov’ On the alleged “Oplan Romanov,” Castro said the Vice President should provide evidence of the existence of such a plot. House prosecution counsel and spokesman Benjamin Tolosa Jr. gave the same view. “It’s very clear that no evidence can be presented to prove that in any way. It remains an allegation,“ he said. Prosecutors debunked the defense’s position that Duterte’s kill threat was not an impeachable offense. “I’m sure there has been no written contract relating to the hiring of an assassin. As lawyers, we have yet to handle a case with such,” Rep. Ysabel Maria Zamora said. “And this one – this is not from a prosecutor, but I guess from a lawyer. Any contract involving 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 pointed out. Trial spokesman and adviser Robert Ace Barbers said it would be illogical to expect individuals conspiring to commit a crime to enter into a legally enforceable written agreement. “I haven’t seen a case where a criminal signed a contract to kill – if indeed the person is an assassin, I really don’t think that there is a contract, or that he would sign it. What if he refused to do it? Can you sue him for a breach of contract? I don’t think so,” he said. – Delon Porcalla, Daphne Galvez - Latest - Trending