Legal actions recommended to deal with vice president’s “meltdown”

THE HOUSE order to transfer Zuleika Lopez, Vice President Sara Duterte’s chief of staff, to the Women’s Correctional Facility provoked Duterte’s furious virtual press conference at around 12:30 am of November 23. Duterte joined Lopez in her current detention facility in the House premises.

Duterte assured her supporters about her security, that they should not worry as she had already instructed someone—that if she is killed—to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., his cousin House Speaker Martin Romualdez, and First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos.

Duterte, who is being investigated by the House for her alleged misuse of confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President and Department of Education (DepEd), also accused the first lady of being involved in the distribution of cash-filled envelopes to DepEd officials.

Various government officials and security agencies promptly condemned Duterte for her threats. At a press briefing in Malacañang on November 25, the Department of Justice (DOJ) described Duterte as a “self-confessed mastermind.” According to DOJ Undersecretary Jesse Hermogenes Andres, DOJ is considering filing a sedition complaint against Duterte.

The National Bureau of Investigation, for its part, directed Duterte on November 26 to explain her statement, citing her possible violation of Republic Act No. 11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Act.

Covering the threats

Media reports interviewed lawyers who pointed to consequences that Duterte may face because of her outburst.

24 Oras on November 24 featured an interview with Atty. Domingo Cayosa, former president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, who said that Duterte could be charged with unethical conduct for practicing her legal profession as the representative of Lopez.  Cayosa added that libel may be filed against Duterte, not only for her cursing remarks but also for her accusations of grave crimes against the first lady.

Interviewed on November 25 on Teleradyo Serbisyo, Atty. Michael Yusingco, a policy analyst, called on various government bodies to hold Duterte accountable for her statement. Yusingco also said the Office of the Ombudsman should investigate Duterte’s possible misuse of confidential funds, noting how this could be a potential plunder case.

He added that the DOJ and police authorities should also investigate the threats made by Duterte, reminding the authorities that the incumbent vice president is not immune from a criminal suit.

On the issue of impeachment, Yusingco noted the limitations of the process, which would only remove Duterte from office and disqualify her from holding or running for government office—but impeachment would not hold her accountable for her actions. Yusingco also suggested the filing of criminal and administrative complaints against the VP.

To say the least, Sara Duterte’s speech was unbecoming and inappropriate for a public official. That her words constituted an objective offense should have been noted by reports. Citing the agreement of critics may strengthen the argument but journalists would have been correct to cite on their own the codes of conduct that Sara Duterte clearly violated with her speech, raising questions about her fitness for public office.

Media should check on whether the Department of Justice or any other agency will act on Duterte’s offenses. There are legal prescriptions for such abuse of public office. Will government take the lead? Or will Sara Duterte evade consequences because of her power and position?