WHY “THERE WAS NO KILLER” DOES NOT END THE STORY
Why “there was no killer” does not settle the Sara Duterte threat issue, and why the absence of an identified assassin does not end the wider security question.
5 min read
The defense’s argument deserves a fair hearing.
Prosecutors did not present an identified assassin. They showed no payment trail, and nobody came forward to say Sara Duterte hired them to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, or former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
Fair enough.
Anyone claiming that the Vice President entered a murder-for-hire deal should have proof.
A person cannot be declared guilty just because the public fears her surname. I would not accept that standard against a politician I support, so I cannot use it against someone I do not.
But the defense leaves me with another question.
What exactly are we supposed to do with the words she herself put out in public?
THE WORDS ARE ALREADY THERE
On November 23, 2024, Sara Duterte spoke about having someone kill Marcos, Araneta-Marcos, and Romualdez if she were killed.
She named all three rather than referring vaguely to some enemy in the background.
A few days later, she returned to the subject. That later statement became part of the material presented during her impeachment trial.
The National Bureau of Investigation, or NBI, reviewed Duterte’s public briefings from October and November 2024 rather than relying on a single viral clip. Investigators considered the language, her delivery, the political conflict surrounding the people she named, and the reactions of government offices and the intended targets.
NBI Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc later told the Senate impeachment court that the statements were “serious, real and actual.” The bureau found grounds to recommend three counts of grave threats and one count of inciting to sedition.
That finding alone cannot settle the case, but it tells us something important about how investigators understood the statements.
They did not hear a joke.
THE MISSING ASSASSIN
The missing assassin cannot simply be brushed aside.
Lotoc admitted that he had no personal knowledge that Sara Duterte had hired a particular person. The NBI also did not publicly identify anyone who received an order, got paid, or prepared to carry out an attack.
The defense should press that gap.
Any serious legal process needs proof. A claim that there was an actual murder-for-hire arrangement demands more than the words of the person accused.
There may never be an identified assassin. The evidence may never establish that anyone was hired.
Should the record end there, nobody should invent a killer just to make the accusation easier to believe.
The difficulty comes when the absence of an identified assassin is treated as proof that no threat existed.
Those are separate questions.
One concerns whether a specific criminal arrangement can be established through evidence. The other concerns whether a vice president publicly discussing the killing of three named officials gave the government a legitimate reason to investigate and increase security.
Consider a reported bomb threat. Police do not wait for an explosion before checking whether the danger is real. The possibility that no bomb exists is part of the investigation, but the cost of dismissing the warning too early can be enormous.
The same basic problem exists here.
WHY THE OFFICE CHANGES THE WEIGHT
People say ugly things when they are furious.
Someone gets fed up with a boss, a landlord, an ex, or a politician and blurts out, “I could kill him.” Most of the time, anger is doing the talking, and every reckless statement made in a bad moment should not automatically become a criminal case.
Sara Duterte, however, was speaking as Vice President of the Philippines.
Her words could trigger security responses, place the President and First Lady under closer protection, and pull supporters deeper into an already hostile political conflict.
Lotoc told the impeachment court that Duterte had intent and capability. He pointed to her position as vice president when explaining why investigators took the remarks seriously.
The office changes how such words are received.
A vice president has access, influence, personnel, supporters, and a national platform. When the person holding that office names the President, his wife, and a senior political rival while talking about their deaths, security officials have to consider possibilities that would not arise from an ordinary private argument.
Shrugging and moving on would carry its own risk.
THE DUTERTE NAME IS PART OF THE CONTEXT
Here is where I have to be careful.
Sara Duterte cannot be declared guilty because of her father. Children do not inherit criminal liability through a surname, and her case should rest on what she said, what she did, and what the evidence can establish.
Rodrigo Duterte belongs in the discussion for a narrower reason.
During a 2024 Senate hearing, he admitted that he kept a death squad in Davao City and spoke about giving kill orders. He also described telling police to “encourage” suspects to fight back, creating a reason to shoot them.
None of that establishes that his daughter hired anyone.
It does, however, form part of the background security officials had to assess when evaluating her statements. Treating the remarks as ordinary political noise would have meant ignoring a history already associated with violence and kill orders through Rodrigo Duterte’s own admissions.
That history cannot establish Sara Duterte’s guilt.
Her own words remain the central issue.
WHAT THE DEFENSE LEAVES OPEN
The defense points to the absence of an identified killer, while the NBI says the statements and surrounding events gave investigators sufficient grounds to recommend charges.
Both propositions can exist at the same time.
Perhaps the prosecution will fail to establish that an assassin was hired. The Senate could also conclude that the evidence falls short of an impeachable offense.
Those are questions for the legal process, where evidence rather than public anger should decide the outcome.
A separate public question remains.
Did people overreact when they took the threat seriously?
I do not think they did.
Sara Duterte named the President, the First Lady, and a senior political rival. Investigators reviewed more than one statement before reaching their conclusion, and the NBI described the threat as serious, real, and actual.
The defense is right to ask where the assassin is.
That question should continue to be asked because the answer could determine how much of the accusation prosecutors can actually prove.
But the missing assassin cannot wipe away everything else that officials had in front of them: Duterte’s own statements, the authority of the office she held, the political conflict surrounding the people she named, and a family history that security officials could hardly pretend did not exist.
Perhaps no assassin will ever be found.
That would place a limit on what prosecutors can establish in court. It would not mean the country was wrong to investigate before someone ended up dead.
Waiting for proof after the worst has already happened is a strange way to protect anyone.
SOURCES
Manila Bulletin, “VP Sara impeachment: Defense says prosecution has no proof she hired an assassin,” https://mb.com.ph/.../vp-sara-impeachment-defense-says...
SunStar, “Defense: Prosecution admitted it has no proof Duterte hired assassin,” https://www.sunstar.com.ph/.../defense-prosecution...
Inquirer.net, “NBI witness: Sara Duterte threats vs Marcos ‘serious, real, and actual,’” https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/.../nbi-witness-sara...
Inquirer.net, “VP threats vs Marcos ‘serious, real’ – NBI exec,” https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/.../vp-threats-vs-marcos...
Inquirer.net, “Witness: VP Sara Duterte capable of carrying out threats,” https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/.../witness-vp-sara-duterte...
Inquirer.net, “NBI exec: Evidence points to Sara Duterte’s kill plot vs Marcos,” https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/.../nbi-exec-evidence...
Philstar, “Duterte admits giving kill orders, confirms death squad existence,” https://www.philstar.com/.../duterte-admits-giving-kill...
South China Morning Post, “Ex-Philippine president Duterte’s ‘I had a death squad’ admission stuns Senate,” https://www.scmp.com/.../ex-philippine-president-dutertes...
Contact us
subscribe to morning coffee thoughts today!
inquiry@morningcoffeethoughts.org
© 2024. All rights reserved.