A Dangerous Precedent: Analyzing Sara Duterte’s ‘Kill’ Remark and Its Legal Fallout

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — November 24, 2024

A VICE president plotting assassinations? Sara Duterte’s shocking claim about hiring a hitman to target President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and Speaker Martin Romualdez has stunned the nation. While she now dismisses it as hyperbole, the statement’s legal and political fallout is anything but trivial. Let’s delve into this unparalleled controversy shaking Philippine governance.

The Boiling Point: Escalating Instability

Sara Duterte has displayed behavior that some may interpret as emotionally volatile and combative, as evidenced by her public statements and actions. Her comments, made amid investigations into the questionable utilization of confidential funds by her office, reveal a pattern of defensive and unconventional behavior that suggests desperation amid declining public support. These actions include:

Emotional Instability: Duterte’s impulsive and inflammatory remarks have raised questions about her temperament. Her comment came in the wake of intense scrutiny of her office’s budget utilization and the detention of her chief of staff, Zuleika Lopez. The public nature of the statement, combined with her decision to spend the night in the office of her brother, Davao Rep. Paolo Duterte, hints at emotional volatility under pressure.
Paranoia: Duterte has previously cited political attacks as motives behind her actions, suggesting deep distrust of her political allies. Her claims of potential plots against her, coupled with the extreme response of contracting an assassin, indicate a heightened sense of persecution.
Combative and Unconventional Behavior: Duterte’s public vow to obstruct Lopez’s detention and her inflammatory rhetoric signal her combative stance. Her declaration, “No joke, no joke,” to underscore her seriousness further illustrates her unconventional and confrontational approach to political disputes.
Desperation Amid Declining Popularity: Duterte’s popularity has been waning, compounded by damning audits and ongoing legislative investigations into her office’s finances. The incendiary remarks could be interpreted as a desperate attempt to divert attention or consolidate her loyal base amid increasing political isolation.

The Legal Ramifications: Duterte’s ‘Kill Remark’

The statement by Vice President Duterte, whether hyperbolic or serious, raises significant legal concerns under Philippine law. Key legal areas include:

1. Criminal Liability

Duterte’s remarks may constitute violations of the Revised Penal Code (RPC):

Article 282 (Grave Threats): A public statement about contracting someone to kill specific individuals, including the President, can be prosecuted as a grave threat. This offense is punishable by prision mayor (6 to 12 years) if proven intentional.
Article 114 (Inciting to Sedition): Although her remarks may not meet the full threshold of sedition, they incite public unrest and distrust in government institutions, making it a plausible legal angle.
Conspiracy to Commit Murder (Article 248, Revised Penal Code)
If evidence shows that Duterte had indeed contracted someone to carry out these actions, it could constitute conspiracy to commit murder.

2. Ethical and Impeachment Grounds

The Vice President’s actions may violate ethical norms under the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials (RA 6713). Her conduct could be grounds for impeachment, as outlined in Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, under the categories of culpable violation of the Constitution or betrayal of public trust.

Relevant Precedents

People v. Panganiban (G.R. No. 167528): This case illustrates that even jokingly made threats can be prosecuted when they instill genuine fear or disrupt public order.
Estrada v. Desierto (G.R. Nos. 146710-15): Demonstrates the necessity for clear and convincing evidence in cases involving high-ranking officials, especially for impeachment or removal from office.
People v. Bongalon (G.R. No. 231710, July 18, 2018): This decision highlighted the gravity of public utterances inciting violence, setting a precedent for addressing statements that endanger public order.

The Legal Options: Potential Defenses

Freedom of Speech (Article III, Section 4 of the Constitution): Duterte may argue that her statements were made in jest and fall under her constitutional right to free speech. However, this defense is weakened by the explicit and violent nature of the remarks.
Lack of Serious Intent: Duterte may assert that her remarks were rhetorical, aiming to emphasize her own safety concerns rather than to make actionable threats.
Political Persecution: Duterte could argue that the investigation into her remarks is politically motivated, leveraging her declining popularity and political rift with President Marcos to frame the controversy as an attack on her political career.

The Roadblocks to Prosecution

Political Influence
As Vice President, Duterte holds significant political clout. Pursuing charges against her may face delays, political pushback, or reluctance from law enforcement agencies.
Evidentiary Barriers: Establishing intent or conspiracy would require corroborative evidence of actual steps taken to execute the alleged threat.
Public and Political Resistance: Supporters of Duterte may view prosecution as a politically motivated attack, potentially polarizing public opinion and fueling further instability.

Recommendations

For Sara Duterte:
- Publicly retract and clarify her statements to mitigate legal and political repercussions.
- Cooperate fully with investigations and focus on addressing issues surrounding her office’s budget utilization.
For President Marcos, the First Lady, and Speaker Romualdez:
- Maintain heightened security measures and avoid escalating rhetoric.
- Encourage legal accountability while promoting political reconciliation to stabilize governance.
For the Filipino Public:
- Demand transparency and accountability from all public officials.
- Reject inflammatory rhetoric and support democratic processes that ensure justice and governance.

Conclusion

The Vice President’s startling admission is more than a political misstep; it is a mirror reflecting the fragility of alliances and institutions in Philippine democracy. Beyond the legal debates lies a fundamental question: can the rule of law withstand such strain? For a nation already tested by scandals and controversies, the answer may well determine the future of its democratic soul.