VP Sara’s threats against Marcos a matter of national security — NSC

By Kyle Aristophere T. Atienza and Kenneth Christiane L. Basilio,  Reporters

THE National Security Council (NSC) on Sunday said all threats to the President’s life is “considered a matter of national security” after Vice-President Sara Z. Duterte-Carpio’s assassination remarks, which analysts said, undermined efforts to make government decisions policy-driven.

The Council said threats to President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. will be validated, noting that his safety is a “non-partisan issue.”

“The matter is now subject to an ongoing investigation. If the evidence warrants, this could lead to eventual prosecution,” Presidential Communications Office Secretary Cesar B. Chavez told reporters over Viber, citing the Justice department.

The Presidential Security Command (PSC) on Saturday said it had “heightened and strengthened” its security protocols following Ms. Duterte’s remarks in which she had instructed her security personnel to “kill” the Philippine President, his wife, Marie Louise Araneta-Marcos, as well as House Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez, if she is murdered.

“We are also closely coordinating with law enforcement agencies to detect, deter, and defend against any and all threats to the President and the First Family, the PSC said, heeding Executive Secretary Lucas P. Bersamin’s directive for “immediate proper action.”

Any threat to the life of the President and his family, regardless of its origin, “and especially one made so brazenly in public,” is treated with “utmost seriousness,” it added.

The Philippine military on Saturday called for “calm and resolve,” reiterating that it will remain “non-partisan” and that its personnel are “loyal to the Constitution and Chain of Command.”   

“The Vice-President’s remark is not only bringing us again to a gutter-level elite edition of politics but also the bankruptcy of our political institutions,” said Gary Ador A. Dionisio, dean of the De La Salle — College of Saint Benilde School of Diplomacy and Governance.

“This remark reduces the government to ‘family feud’ and really leaves behind the policies and programs intended to be beneficial for our people,” he added in a Facebook Messenger chat.

At the same time, human rights groups Philippine Alliance for Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA) said her remarks could worsen the culture of death and impunity in the country.  “The human rights community must remain vigilant and proactive in promoting peace, accountability, and responsible leadership,” PAHRA Secretary-General Edgar Cabalitan said via Messenger chat.

Ms. Duterte, the country’s second highest official, made the remark in a news briefing past midnight of Saturday, after the House committee on good government ordered the transfer of her chief of staff, Zuleika T. Lopez, to the Women’s Correctional Facility in Mandaluyong City from the lower chamber’s detention facility.

The Vice-President had been staying in the office of her brother Davao City Rep. Paolo Z. Duterte since Nov. 21 to have an access to Ms. Lopez, who was cited in contempt due to her alleged evasive answers to questions during the House’s probe into the questionable confidential funds of Ms. Duterte at the Office of the Vice-President (OVP) and the Department of Education.

The Vice-President had said she would stay in her brother’s office for as long as there are OVP staff detained at the lower chamber.

DEEPENING POLITICAL DIVIDE
Philip Arnold P. Tuaño, dean at the Ateneo School of Government, said the threats made by Ms. Duterte deepen the political divides in the country.”

“This potentially distracts the government from addressing pressing issues like poverty, economic recovery, and public health,” he said via Messenger chat.

Pushes for good governance, political reforms, and a stable human rights environment are among the casualties amid the growing divide between Mr. Marcos’ camp and the family of former President Rodrigo R. Duterte, said Maria Ela L. Atienza, a political science professor at the University of the Philippines.

“The split that is so obvious now only shows that all of them are complicit with preserving elite politics and patronage,” she said in a Viber message.

Ms. Atienza had told BusinessWorld weeks after the 2022 presidential elections that the supposed unity between the two families was bound to split at any moment because it was based on patronage and political ambitions and not founded principles and platforms.

Ateneo Policy Center senior fellow Michael Henry Ll. Yusingco said the hate remarks of Ms. Duterte were “utterly disappointing” because as the VP, she’s a “president-in-waiting and not a president-in-training.”

“Meaning, the Vice-President must at all times be ready to be our president. The Vice-President must exhibit the skills and temperament to be the leader of our country,” he said via Messenger chat. “From what happened yesterday, it appears that this is not the case.”

Mr. Yusingco warned that the intensifying politics would worsen the politicization of institutions within the government.

“Case in point would be the Philippine National Police (PNP) executing orders issued by the House. This is highly irregular considering the House is not performing judicial or executive functions,” he said. “And the duty of the PNP is to fight and prevent crimes, both of which do not cover dealing with the House’s administrative concerns.”

“So overall, the heightened partisan politics present now can be severely detrimental to governance with the politicization of the bureaucracy and civil service,” he added.

GROWING DESPERATION
Ms. Duterte’s outburst could be a sign of growing desperation to maintain power and an attempt to solidify her political base amid an escalating feud between the two camps.

“The recent outburst can indicate an increasing desperation, a crescendo in an overall political strategy of self-destructive aggression,” Anthony Lawrence A. Borja, a political science professor at De La Salle University, said in a Facebook chat.

Mr. Marcos and Ms. Duterte, in 2022, ran under a political alliance that delivered landslide wins, with both of them receiving more than half of all votes cast during the elections.

But their relationship has turned sour as the Marcos administration launched investigations against ex-President Rodrigo R. Duterte’s deadly drug war and the OVP’s controversial secret fund spending.

“[Saturday’s] outburst is by far the most threatening since it talked about assassinating the president,” Jean S. Encinas-Franco, who teaches political science at the University of the Philippines, said in a Viber message. “She wanted to portray to her supporters that she is unbowed.”

Some might find her unhinged, but most will find her outbursts “authentic” simply because this is something we do not see among “normal” politicians.

“The latest developments in the committee hearings have probably convinced her that Speaker Romualdez and President Marcos, Jr. are behind this. Vice-President Duterte must have sensed that the committee hearings are part of a sinister plot against her,” Dennis C. Coronacion, who heads the University of Sto. Tomas Political Science Department, said in a Facebook chat.

The House good government and public accountability has been holding inquiries into Ms. Duterte’s alleged misuse of P612.5 million worth of confidential and intelligence funds, under the OVP’s budget in 2022 and the Education department in 2023, when she sat as its secretary.

The vice-president alleged the hearings are laying the groundwork for an impeachment case against her.

“The pieces of evidence that were presented before the House good government panel are revealing enough to show massive graft and corruption, which is a ground for impeachment,” National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers President Ephraim B. Cortez said in a Viber message.

“If the accusations against her were in fact baseless, she could’ve answered these already,” Edmund Tayao, president of Political Economic Elemental Researchers and Strategists, said in a Viber message.

The 1987 Constitution’s grounds for impeachment include “culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.”

The last clause serves as a “catch-all phrase” to offenses not punishable under law, but is against public interest and “tend to bring the office into disrepute,” according to Rustico F. de Los Reyes, Jr., a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission.

Ms. Duterte’s fiery remarks against the Marcoses could fall under betrayal of public trust and is a violation of “the conduct expected of our public officials,” according to Mr. Cortez.

The vice-president’s statements could be seen as an attempt to “agitate the public against the administration and hopefully trigger an extra-constitutional event,” said Mr. Tayao.