Like any ordinary citizen, Duterte is subject to the criminal jurisdiction for whatever crime/s he may have committed, including grave threats, which Castro is contemplating on filing against the former president
Rodrigo Duterte, in a television interview on SMN, hurled threats against ACT-Teachers party-list Rep. France Castro for exposing in the House of Representatives Vice President Sara Duterte’s confidential and intelligence funds and the problems related to them.
The ex-president stepped in to support his daughter, who has been receiving criticism for her involvement in the handling of confidential fund allocation and expenditures related to her dual roles as the head of the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education, as well as her previous tenure as the mayor of Davao City.
During the interview, the older Duterte described Castro as a “friend” because of her political ties.
Despite his strong disapproval of the Left’s critique of confidential funds, the ex-president stated, “Because they are my acquaintances, I can’t directly declare that we’re adversaries. I’d rather address our differences amicably, as we share a friendly connection;” adding, “I want to kill you softly because we are friends.”
The ex-president emphasized that his daughter’s clandestine fund allocation should prioritize Castro as its initial recipient.
He additionally labeled the minority legislator and the remaining members of the Makabayan bloc as having links to subversive activities.
According to the older Duterte, he had advised the Vice President to just be frank about the purpose of the confidential funds — which is to supposedly kill communists.
Rightfully, many lawmakers belonging to most if not all parties who have members who are fellow legislators of Castro came to her defense.
In a statement, these political parties have called on the former president “to avoid making threats or insinuating harm against any member of the House or the institution itself.”
Former president Duterte also criticized the chamber’s decision to reallocate confidential funds to security agencies.
He has accused our legislators also of corruption.
Amid escalating tensions and increased assertiveness by China in the West Philippine Sea, the House justified its decision to transfer confidential funds from civilian agencies to the security agencies’ budget.
“It is deeply unfortunate that the former president chose to malign the very institution that for years supported many of his own legislative priorities” one lawmaker lamented.
The House also emphasized it doesn’t possess any confidential funds and clarified its special and miscellaneous funds are “regular budget allocations designated for official responsibilities and tasks.”
Furthermore, it stated these funds are subject to examination and strict supervision by state auditors.
“Threatening the lives of elected representatives is a blatant violation and a dangerous attack on the rights of individuals who are merely pushing for transparency and accountability in government spending,” said Gabriela Party-list Rep. Arlene Brosas.
For her part, Rep. Castro said it is crucial to ensure the safety of legislators and external activists who raise their voices in defense of people’s rights.
During his presidency, Duterte’s speeches and public pronouncements were often punctuated with cuss words, threats and Red tagging.
Yet, Duterte got away with it and faced no adverse consequence because of presidential immunity from suit, which said, as explained in David v. Macapagal-Arroyo:
“Settled is the doctrine that the President, during his tenure of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it in the Constitution or law.
“It will degrade the dignity of the high office of the President, the head of State, if he can be dragged into court litigations while serving as such.
“Furthermore, it is important that he be freed from any form of harassment, hindrance or distraction to enable him to fully attend to the performance of his official duties and functions.”
As explained in case law, presidential immunity is founded on two key principles: firstly, the notion that the President’s role is of utmost significance, demanding an uninterrupted focus without the distraction of legal disputes, and, secondly, the apprehension that such disputes might diminish the esteemed stature of the presidential office.
This immunity can be likened to a “service charge” that enables the President to concentrate on his duties, even in situations where it is not explicitly granted by the 1987 Constitution.
But as a private citizen, Duterte cannot invoke presidential immunity this time.
Like any ordinary citizen, he is subject to the criminal jurisdiction for whatever crime/s he may have committed, including grave threats, which Castro is contemplating on filing against the former president.
Citing the case of Parea vs. People, a former party-list representative Neri Colmenares said, “At the very least, what Duterte did is tantamount to grave threats, which is a crime committed by a person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime.”
I agree with Mr Colmenares who said: “The public has the right to know where their public funds are spent.
“To threaten those who criticize wanton spending of public funds in 11 days is vintage Duterte, who is intolerant of dissent and criticism,” and that “a threat delivered on national television should not be ignored and must be called out. Duterte’s red-tagging and threats to activists and the opposition must be stopped.”
