Sara Duterte's Defense Team Questions Investigation into Threats Against Marcos

The single sharpest fact in one or two punchy sentences. Who did what, where, when, and why it matters. Not a summary of everything — the one thing that makes someone stop scrolling.

MANILA, Philippines – Defense lawyer Mark Vinluan of Sara Duterte's team raised concerns about the investigation into her alleged threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. during the impeachment trial's fourth day. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) had forwarded its complaint to the Department of Justice (DOJ) on January 30, 2025, alleging that Duterte's violation constituted three counts of grave threats and one count of inciting to sedition.

But, according to DOJ's certification dated February 5, 2025, the complaint lacked necessary evidence. This left many questions unanswered, including why the NBI did an investigation and sought witnesses despite this being the case. Prosecution witness and former NBI cybercrime division chief Jeremy Lotoc attempted to clarify this by saying the DOJ returned the complaint because it asked for additional evidence, including more affidavits from NBI agents.

However, Vinluan was not convinced by this explanation. He pointed out that one of the NBI's investigative forms was originally dated February 12, 2025, but was manually revised to January 30, the defense lawyer alleged. He also highlighted alleged discrepancies in the docket numbers of the NBI documents.

The defense lawyer also questioned whether Marcos had a hand in the NBI probe into Duterte. The NBI is an attached bureau of the DOJ, and the DOJ chief is answerable to the President. However, Lotoc said it's within their mandate to probe alleged threats against high-ranking officials, including the President. He said the NBI may even do it motu proprio or on their own initiative.

But Vinluan was not satisfied with this answer. He noted that there was an 'Oplan Romanov' or alleged threat against Duterte's life and her family. Lotoc said they conducted a motu proprio investigation, too, for the Vice President, but found no concrete threat.

And, according to the defense team, there were multiple typographical errors in the affidavits used by the NBI for its complaint. Vinluan also asked if the bureau used templates for the affidavits. Lotoc responded by saying one could ask the signatories in the affidavits.

Despite the defense team's efforts to poke holes in the investigation, the prosecution remained firm in its stance. Amando Ligutan, lawyer for the House prosecution team, stated that the alleged discrepancies have no bearing on the impeachment itself. The question remains whether the Vice President betrayed public trust by contracting an assassin to kill the President.