What are the legal repercussions of Duterte's expletives, assassination threat vs. Marcos?

Duterte's threat came after her chief of staff Zuleika Lopez was cited in contempt on Nov. 20 for "undue interference" in the House panel's probe.

Her Nov. 23 press conference also appeared to be a fiercer sequel to Oct. 18's, during which she said Marcos isn't capable of leading the Philippines, and that Filipinos are supposedly "on this road to hell."

She also shared that she warned Sen. Imee Marcos, the presidential sister, that she would personally dig up the body of their father, the late Ferdinand Marcos Sr., and throw it into the West Philippine Sea if the attacks against her didn't stop.

The VP also said she imagined cutting the younger Marcos' head off for supposedly refusing to give his watch to a Philippine Military Academy cadet during a graduation ceremony. She then called their relationship "toxic."

Legal repercussions

Duterte's latest statements raised questions on its legal repercussions, bringing to light the 2020 news of a 25-year-old teacher being detained for allegedly offering a P50 million reward to kill Duterte's father, then-president Rodrigo Duterte.

Atty. Jefferson Legado, a solo practitioner, told PhilSTAR L!fe that the Vice President, although an impeachable officer, is not immune from suit unlike the sitting president, who enjoys immunity from suit during his tenure and therefore cannot be investigated or prosecuted while he remains in office.

"VP Sara’s utterances [were] a threat to kill a sitting president, whether or not it happens. What is clear is that there is a threat, which in itself is punishable by law," Legado said.

Atty. Carlo John Pascual of Manalo and Valenton Law Offices told L!fe that there may be a possible proceeding for disbarment, suspension, or discipline of Duterte, who's also a lawyer, for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).

Canon II states that “a lawyer shall, at all times, act with propriety and maintain the appearance of propriety in personal and professional dealings, observe honesty, respect, and courtesy, and uphold the dignity of the legal profession consistent with the highest standards of ethical behavior.”

"Considering her actions appear to be inconsistent with the aforesaid canon, then disciplinary actions may be instituted against VP Sara," Pascual said.

In 2023, the Supreme Court (SC) disbarred Atty. Larry Gadon for repeatedly cursing journalist Raissa Robles.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines' (IBP) former president Domingo Cayoso, in a radio interview, said Duterte's pronouncements may also amount to a violation of the CPRA's Canon I, which states that a lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes.

Pascual also noted that Duterte may have violated the CPRA's Canon III Section 21, as she claimed to be the legal counsel of Lopez.

The section states that a lawyer "currently serving in the government shall not practice law privately, unless otherwise authorized by the Constitution, the law or applicable Civil Service rules and regulations."

Moreover, Article VII Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution states that the president, vice president, and Cabinet members and their assistants cannot hold any other office or employment during their tenure.

"They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office."

Pascual, citing the CPRA's Canon VI, said the SC may initiate proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of lawyers.

The IBP's Board of Governors may also file a verified complaint. Any person may do so before the SC or the IBP, but for government lawyers, it must only be before the SC.

People may file criminal information before the court via the Department of Justice, according to Legado.

Atty. Hyacinth Merioles of Merioles Law Office, meanwhile, told L!fe that those whom Duterte named in her rant (i.e. the Marcoses and Romualdez) may file a cybercrime case, including grave oral defamation or slander.

Merioles cited the Revised Penal Code (RPC)'s Article 358, which states that there's oral defamation when there's an allegation of a crime, fault, or flaw; it was made orally, publicly, maliciously, toward a person, whether dead or alive; and if such allegation tends to cause dishonor.

Since it was done on Zoom, it falls under the ambit of the Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cyber Crime Prevention Act of 2012.

Section 6 states that ”All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act." Penalties imposed would also be one degree higher than what the RPC provided.

Merioles, however, noted that Duterte can put forth defenses in making such statements.

"She can prove that her statements are true and these were made in good faith, thus negating malice, and/or that such statements are exempt as 'privileged communication,' having been uttered in the performance of her official duties (as Vice President)," she said.

Duterte's statements won't have legal repercussions unless the actual filing of cases happens, according to Merioles.

'Active threat' against the president, 'matter of national security'

After Duterte's pronouncements, Malacañang said it was an “active threat” against the president.

In a statement published on its website, the Presidential Communications Office said that it is "acting on the Vice President’s clear and unequivocal statement that she had contracted an assassin to kill the President if an alleged plot against her succeeds." 

"The Executive Secretary [Cesar Chavez] has referred this active threat to the Presidential Security Command for immediate proper action," it said.

The National Security Council (NSC) said all threats against Marcos are "a matter of national security."

Duterte, in a statement on Nov. 25, said the NSC "maliciously" took her statement out of context, and demanded "a copy of the notice of meeting with proof of service, the list of attendees, photos of the meeting, and the notarized minutes of the meeting where the Council, whether present or past, resolved to consider the remarks by a Vice President against a President, maliciously taken out of logical context, as a national security concern."

Trixie Cruz-Angeles, Marcos's former press secretary, downplayed responses to Duterte's statements as "baseless and sensationalized." She claimed that the assassination pronouncement was a "hyperbolic" remark that media outlets blew out of proportion.

The National Bureau of Investigation said it will issue a subpoena against Duterte to explain her actions. She was given five days to appear in the agency's office.

For his part, Marcos went live on Facebook later in the day, saying that the threat wasn't something to let pass.

“Nakakabahala ang mga pahayag na narinig natin nitong mga nakaraang araw. Nandiyan ang walang pakundangang pagmumura at ang pagbabanta ng planong ipapatay ang ilan sa atin,” he said. “Kung ganun na lang kadali ang pagplano sa pagpatay ng isang Presidente, papaano pa kaya ang mga pangkaraniwan na mamamayan? ‘Yang ganyang krimimal na pagtatangka ay hindi dapat pinapalampas. ‘Yan ay aking papalagan."

Marcos didn't mention concrete steps he'd take, but he pointed out that all those with a seat in the government must fulfill their duties of following and protecting the Constitution, even if it means investigating those holding the highest position.