By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA, Philippines — Vice President Sara Duterte is facing renewed criticism from lawmakers after questioning her safety around law enforcement, as the criminal case against her over alleged threats involving President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. moves forward in court.
Duterte is facing three counts of grave threats before the Quezon City Regional Trial Court involving Marcos, First Lady Liza Marcos and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
The court issued a warrant for her arrest in connection with the case. Duterte later appeared before the court and posted P120,000 bail for each of the three counts on September 5.
Her legal predicament has triggered a fresh round of criticism from lawmakers and former government officials.
Rep. Leila de Lima of Mamamayang Liberal rejected Duterte’s portrayal of herself as a victim.
“Hindi ka biktima; may pananagutan ka,” De Lima said.
Former senator Antonio Trillanes IV also criticized Duterte, urging Filipinos to carefully consider her political record in future elections. He said Duterte should neither become president nor continue as vice president.
The manner in which authorities handled Duterte’s arrest also came under scrutiny.
Rep. Terry Ridon, one of the prosecutors in the House impeachment proceedings against Duterte, questioned why the Philippine National Police did not subject her to what he described as its normal booking procedures.
Ridon said the vice president appeared to have received special treatment despite the principle that the law should apply equally to all accused persons.
“The Philippine National Police waived its ordinary booking procedures in the case of Vice President Sara Duterte,” Ridon said.
“It is clearly a case of special treatment that does not speak well of the rule of law and the equality of persons before the law,” he added.
Interior Secretary Jonvic Remulla defended the police response, saying authorities treated Duterte with due respect because of her position.
Remulla said body-camera footage documented the serving of the warrants and Duterte’s arrival at the court to post bail.
He also said authorities were aware of Duterte’s whereabouts the night before but did not immediately resort to a forced arrest.
The Department of Justice maintained that presidential immunity from suit applies to the sitting president and does not extend to the vice president.
DOJ spokesperson Polo Martinez said the department’s position was that immunity is attached to the president as chief executive.
“The DOJ’s position is that presidential immunity is lodged solely in the president as chief executive,” Martinez said.
The position formed part of the DOJ’s basis for pursuing the criminal complaint against Duterte.
Duterte’s lawyers have challenged the criminal proceedings, raising the issue of whether her status as an impeachable official provides protection from criminal prosecution.
Former senator and lawyer Franklin Drilon rejected that argument, stressing that impeachment and criminal prosecution are governed by separate processes.
Drilon said impeachment is a constitutional proceeding that determines whether a public official should remain in office. It is not a criminal case and does not result in imprisonment.
A conviction in an impeachment proceeding can result in removal from office and perpetual disqualification from holding public office, he said.
Impeachment legal spokesperson Benjamin Tolosa likewise distinguished the two proceedings, noting that the trial court’s determination of probable cause in the grave threats case is separate from the impeachment process concerning Duterte’s continued eligibility to remain in office.
The grave threats allegations are also included in Article I of the Articles of Impeachment filed against Duterte.
The criminal case will therefore proceed before the Quezon City Regional Trial Court independently of the impeachment proceedings, which are governed by a separate constitutional process.
ia/xf
