By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA — The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) on Wednesday maintained that its investigation into Vice President Sara Duterte’s alleged death threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and other senior government officials was legally justified, even without a formal complaint from any of the supposed targets.
Appearing before the Senate impeachment court, NBI Cyber Investigation Senior Agent John Mark Calilung testified that the bureau launched the inquiry on its own initiative, citing its statutory mandate to investigate threats involving the country’s highest public officials.
“Our primary responsibility is to investigate threats against the President, the Vice President, the Senate President, the Speaker of the House, and the Supreme Court. Once sufficient evidence of a possible crime is established, we file the appropriate charges,” Calilung said in Filipino.
His testimony came in response to questions from Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo, who asked why the NBI proceeded with the investigation despite the absence of complaints from President Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, or Speaker Martin Romualdez.
Calilung explained that the bureau’s authority is derived from Republic Act No. 10867, or the New NBI Law, which authorizes the agency to conduct investigations on its own when circumstances warrant.
During cross-examination by defense counsel Carlo Narvasa, Calilung confirmed that the probe was initiated motu proprio—without any private complainant—and was triggered by Duterte’s public remarks.
He testified that an executive officer directed him to examine statements made by the Vice President after they were deemed to contain possible threats against high-ranking officials.
The hearing also focused on how the NBI evaluated Duterte’s controversial statement that someone had allegedly agreed to assassinate President Marcos, the First Lady, and Speaker Romualdez should anything happen to her.
Although Calilung’s sworn affidavit initially described the remarks as a conditional threat, he told the impeachment court that his personal assessment ultimately considered them an absolute threat.
He explained that the statement suggested an agreement had already been made with another individual, creating the possibility that the alleged plan could be carried out if the stated condition occurred.
“The arrangement, as described, had supposedly already been made. That creates the possibility for a third party to act independently should the condition arise,” Calilung testified.
Senator-Judge Joel Villanueva also sought clarification on how the NBI determines whether a threat is credible.
Calilung said investigators examine several factors, including whether the person making the statement has the capability or influence to carry it out and the context in which the statement was delivered.
He added that investigators also considered Duterte’s repeated assertion that she was “not joking” after making the controversial remarks, viewing it as an important factor in assessing the seriousness of the alleged threat.
The testimony forms part of the House prosecution panel’s presentation of evidence as the Senate impeachment court continues hearing the case against the Vice President.
ia/xf
