Indefensible scare tactics
After disrespecting a retired Sandiganbayan presiding justice at the witness stand, Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense team last week hit a new low—by threatening lawsuits against government officials and even the media for the disclosure of Duterte’s bank records during the impeachment trial.
During his cross-examination of Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura, defense counsel Mark Vinluan confronted the official with provisions in the Anti-Money Laundering Act that penalize those who disclose and report confidential information. Vinluan warned Buenaventura that he remains liable even after separating from the AMLC.
Not content with intimidating Buenaventura, Vinluan asked: “Pati media puwede makasuhan? (Even the media can be charged?)” “Based on the law, it appears stated there,” he added for more dramatic effect.
“We also put on record that Vice President Sara Z. Duterte reserves the right to pursue all appropriate legal remedies against those who will violate the law and her rights thereunder,” Vinluan said.
Chilling effect
Vinluan pursued this dangerous line even after presiding officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero asked Buenaventura at the onset if he would violate any laws by presenting the AMLC records on the suspicious and covered bank transactions of Duterte and her husband Manases Carpio. The AMLC official replied in the negative, saying impeachment is an exception to the bank secrecy law.
Senator-judges quickly pounced on the veiled threats. Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo used his intervention to call out Vinluan for “badgering” the witness even though the impeachment court had already allowed Buenaventura’s testimony. “And I don’t see any reason why the defense keeps on doing this, and even scaring the witness, even the media,” Tulfo said in Filipino.
Senator-judge Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan called Vinluan’s statements uncalled for and asked if the defense counsel would also raise possible criminal liability of senator-judges. Senator-judge Risa Hontiveros said it was wrong to threaten the media, even indirectly, and cause a “chilling effect” on those who are just doing their job of covering the impeachment proceedings.
The following day, a chastened Vinluan formally apologized at the trial, saying “it was never our intention to cause intimidation, especially to the members of this honorable impeachment court” and vowing to be “more circumspect.” Vinluan did not apologize for threatening the media.
Delaying tactics
He is the same Vinluan who, in a bid to discredit retired Sandiganbayan presiding justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang—who the prosecution presented as an expert witness last month—asked her the impertinent question of whether she was a “kakampink” (the pink movement identified with former Vice President Leni Robredo) and if she was bribed for her testimony.
Vinluan’s scare tactics reflect the defense strategy to capitalize on technicalities and absurdities to distract from mounting evidence against their client at this stage in the trial, when it is still the prosecution presenting the case.
Financial forensic analyst Alexander Cabrera summarized the prosecution’s case of ill-gotten wealth against Duterte by testifying that his methodical analysis of complicated corporate structures and unusual banking behaviors led him to conclude that the Vice President and her husband had P817.8 million in unexplained wealth from 2022 to 2025.
And while lawyers are expected to employ obfuscation and delaying tactics to defend their clients, threats and intimidation of witnesses and the media are certainly out of order and must be called out. The public has the right to fully understand the case against the Vice President, not only by watching the Senate proceedings but by listening to the explanations from different sides covered by the media.
P200-million libel case
It doesn’t help that even the Vice President is using the intimidation card. In a press conference last Tuesday, where she refuted the charges that she received millions in cash stuffed in suitcases, Duterte said she might just file a P200-million libel case against GMA Network, which might lead to the network closing down. The TV network first aired the allegations made by former policeman Rodulfo Gracioso Jr. that he delivered the money to Duterte.
Such remarks, even if in jest, leave a bad taste in the mouth. After all, one of the articles of impeachment against her is about her “no joke” threats to have President Marcos, first lady Liza Marcos, and former Speaker Martin Romualdez killed in case she was also assassinated.
And who can forget that her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte, shuttered giant network ABS-CBN during his presidency?
Such jokes and threats have no place in a democracy where public officials are constitutionally mandated to “at all times, be accountable to the people” and where the media must be free to do their job without getting intimidated by the highest officials of the land.
