House prosecutor Joel Chua on Monday said he sought security after Vice President Sara Duterte made controversial remarks in November 2024, saying he feared for his safety because the statements came from the country’s second-highest official.
Speaking to reporters after the fourth day of Duterte’s impeachment trial, Chua said he genuinely felt threatened when the Vice President publicly mentioned his name during the late-night online press conference that is the subject of the fourth article of impeachment.
“At that time, siyempre hindi mo maalis na medyo matatakot naman talaga tayo dahil unang-una, hindi naman ordinaryong tao itong nagbitaw ng ganiyang pananalita, bagkus pangalawa sa pinakamataas na opisyal sa bansa,” Chua said.
(At that time, it was only natural for me to feel afraid because those words were not uttered by an ordinary person, but by the country’s second-highest official.)
Asked if he indeed felt threatened in 2024, Chua answered in the affirmative.
“Siyempre sino naman po ba ang hindi matatakot sa mga pananalita ng ating Bise Presidente? Alam naman natin ang kapasidad nila,” he said.
(Of course, who wouldn’t be frightened by the Vice President’s statements? We know what they are capable of.)
“Wala naman akong security noon, but because of that, naglagay ako ng security. Hindi ito mga salitang binabalewala,” the lawmaker added.
(I didn’t have security at the time, but because of that, I arranged for security. These are not words that can simply be brushed aside.)
Chua made the remarks after National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Regional Director for the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM) Jeremy Lotoc testified before the Senate impeachment court that investigators considered Duterte’s statements “real and serious” and concluded that she had the intent, motive, and capability to carry out the alleged threats.
During the same late-night online press conference in November 2024, Duterte supposedly singled out Chua, who chaired the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability that was then investigating the alleged misuse of confidential funds by the Office of the Vice President.
“Di mo pala gusto ginagawa mo eh bakit mo sinisira pangalan ko, Joel Chua?”
(If you don’t even like what you’re doing, then why are you ruining my name, Joel Chua?)
The same press conference also included Duterte’s alleged threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and then-House Speaker Martin Romualdez, which later became the basis for the fourth article of impeachment against her.
Asked whether Lotoc’s testimony bolstered the prosecution’s argument regarding Duterte’s capability to carry out the alleged threats, Chua pointed to the history surrounding the Duterte family.
“Alam naman natin ang history ng kanilang pamilya. In fact, nasaan ba ngayon ang kanyang ama? Ano ba ang kasong kinakaharap ng kanyang ama? EJK,” Chua said, referring to former President Rodrigo Duterte.
(We all know the history of their family. In fact, where is her father now? What case is he facing? Extrajudicial killings.)
“So alam din naman natin ang itinatawag nilang Davao Death Squad. Lahat ito may kinalaman sa kung ano man ang kapasidad nila para gampanan o gawin ang mga banta.”
(We also know about what they call the Davao Death Squad. All of these are relevant to whatever capability they may have to carry out or act on those threats.)
Chua stressed that the alleged threats should not be dismissed as ordinary remarks because they were directed at the President.
“Ito ay hindi lang masasabi nating ordinaryong grave threat. Ito ay binitawan ng pangalawa sa pinakamataas na opisyal ng ating bansa against sa Pangulo. So ito ay pagbabanta sa head of state,” he said.
(This [utterance] cannot simply be considered an ordinary grave threat. It was made by the country’s second-highest official against the President. It is a threat against the head of state.)
He also rejected arguments that Duterte’s remarks were merely conditional statements.
“Maliwanag na maliwanag… wala namang tinatawag na conditional threat… threat is a threat,” Chua said.
(It’s very clear… there is no such thing as a conditional threat. A threat is a threat.)
He cited a case during the Duterte administration in which an individual was arrested for allegedly threatening the President despite supposedly lacking the means to carry out the threat.
“The issue here is the threat itself,” Chua added.— MCG, GMA News
