Duterte Lawyer Rejects Hitman Plot Charge on Day 3 of Marcos Impeachment Trial

Q: Did the Vice President's public threats against the President cross the line from rhetoric to an actual crime?

Yes—based on the statements aired publicly, the allegations go beyond mere political rhetoric and fit the legal shape of a possible crime, though only a court could decide criminal liability. The key issue is not the separate accusation that Sara Duterte hired a hitman; her lawyer says there is no proof of that, and that remains contested in the impeachment trial. But the public statements themselves are different. Prosecutors point to her 2024 remarks, including saying she had told someone that if she were killed, that person should kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and Martin Romualdez, adding “No joke” and “I already gave the order.” A video clip of that statement has been presented, and NBI officials are expected to authenticate it. Under Philippine law, grave threats can be committed by spoken words if two things are shown: the threat was actually made and it was intended to intimidate. The threatened act must amount to a crime, such as killing someone. Legal experts cited in the proceedings say a conditional threat can still qualify; the crime is generally complete upon the utterance if the required intent is proven. That is why the strongest legal exposure appears to come from the public threat itself, not from the harder-to-prove claim that she contracted an assassin. Her defense argues the remarks were protected speech and political expression. Whether that defense succeeds will turn on context, credibility, and proof of intent.

Q: What is the origin of the $110 million in suspicious funds linked to the Vice President by investigators?

The origin of the roughly $110 million in flagged funds has not been established. Investigators say that is precisely the issue: the Anti-Money Laundering Council identified about ₱6.7 billion in more than 600 transactions linked to Vice President Sara Duterte and her husband from 2006 to 2025 because the movements appeared unusually large and lacked a clear, documented source or economic basis. Under Philippine anti-money-laundering rules, banks report transactions either because they exceed reporting thresholds or because they appear suspicious. In this case, the AMLC reportedly treated many of the transactions as suspicious because there was no clear explanation of how the account holders could lawfully generate or support that level of cash movement. So far, public reporting tied to the impeachment case has not identified a verified single source for the full $110 million. One separate issue raised in hearings involves alleged misuse of confidential funds, including ₱73.28 million flagged by the Commission on Audit and claims by a former aide about cash deliveries from ₱125 million in confidential funds. But those amounts do not account for the entire ₱6.7 billion. In short, investigators are not saying they have already proven where the money came from; they are saying the source remains unclear, insufficiently explained, and therefore suspicious enough to warrant scrutiny.

3 articles · Updated · Bloomberg · Jul 8

Day 3 of Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial centered on a defense attack on a key accusation that she hired a hitman to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.
Mark Vinluan, Duterte’s lawyer, said there was “no proof” of any contract killing arrangement and argued prosecutors were relying on a “hodgepodge of materials” to build a stretched narrative.
The rebuttal directly targets one of the most serious charges in the case, sharpening the clash between the vice president and Marcos as the trial moves deeper into evidentiary arguments.