Hontiveros asks Duterte defense: Threats OK if OVP staff is oppressed?

MANILA, Philippines — Senator-judge Risa Hontiveros on Wednesday asked Vice President Sara Duterte’s lawyers if they believe threats from Duterte were warranted if they had established that her chief of staff had been oppressed.

Hontiveros raised the question to defense lawyer Carlo Joaquin Narvasa after he presented video clips showing Office of the Vice President (OVP) Chief of Staff and Undersecretary Zuleika Lopez crying and calling out the House of Representatives for citing her in contempt and detaining her in November 2024.

She asked about the “relevance” of the video presented by the defense and whether it was intended to establish that Duterte’s alleged threats stemmed from Lopez’s detention.

Article continues after this advertisement

Narvasa said: “Yes, your Honor, there was a systematic oppression made by the House of Representatives dating back from their, even before their mini-trial, your Honor, the committee headed by Rep. Joel Chua began investigating the Vice President and her people, even when Atty. Zuleika Lopez was being interviewed by the House committee (on good government).”

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

“Even if she was answering the questions faithfully to the best of her ability, she was cited in contempt, detained, and her lawyer was not allowed to be with her when they were trying to detain her in the Women’s Correctional Facility, your Honor,” he added.

Hontiveros fired back, asking whether it was the defense’s position that Duterte should get a pass if it were proven that her alleged threats stemmed from a legitimate reason.

“So Mr. Presiding officer, counsel for the defense, is it the position of the defense that the alleged grave threats can be excused if there is a legitimate reason for making them?” Hontiveros asked.

“Your Honor, that is not the point,” Narvasa said.

Article continues after this advertisement

“No, no, your Honor, Mr. Presiding officer, I am making a point through my question, and I am asking the good counsel for the defense. Because they said there was systematic oppression, that yes, it prompted the Vice President’s alleged grave threats and alleged incitements, which were prompted by the detention of Atty. Lopez,” Hontiveros said.

Presiding officer and Senator-judge Francis Escudero reminded his colleagues to avoid asking questions that would lead lawyers from either side to “make conclusions of law and fact,” effectively preventing Narvasa from answering Hontiveros’ questions.

Article continues after this advertisement

“Because if he answers, Senator-Judge Hontiveros, that would effectively place on record a conclusion of fact and law, not drawn from a witness, which they can very well do during their closing remarks, and when I allow him to speak. But other than that, as agreed with some of the senator-judges, we will try to limit the answers of counsel for the parties,” Escudero explained.

Calilung was first called to the witness stand on Tuesday, July 7, as the trial started discussing Article IV of the Articles of Impeachment, which delves into Duterte’s alleged threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and former House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez.

LIVE UPDATES: Impeachment trial of VP Sara Duterte | July 8, 2026

The alleged threat was made during an online press briefing on Nov. 23, 2024, after Duterte visited Lopez, who was then detained inside the House premises.

Lopez was cited in contempt by the House committee on good government and public accountability for allegedly committing undue interference during the panel’s investigation into the alleged misuse of confidential funds in Duterte’s offices.

Infuriated over Lopez’s detention and subsequent attempts to transfer her, Duterte badmouthed the Marcos couple and Romualdez.

At one point, when asked if she was concerned about her security, Duterte replied by urging people not to worry since she had contracted an assassin to kill the three if she herself were killed.

READ: Sara Duterte’s kill remark vs Marcos is ‘active threat’ – Palace

The defense panel initially objected to Calilung’s presentation as a witness, with Narvasa claiming that he was not listed in the Saballa and Cabrera impeachment complaint or in the Articles of Impeachment submitted by the House.

READ: Prosec scores in bunches as Senate court denies several defense motions

Counsel for the prosecution Amando Virgil Ligutan, who was set to directly examine Calilung, reminded Narvasa that the Saballa complaint had already run its course and only served as the basis for the Articles of Impeachment submitted by the House.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

Narvasa objected again, but Escudero cited a previous Supreme Court ruling allowing prosecutors to present evidence or witnesses beyond those included in an Information, in this case, the Articles of Impeachment. /mcm