Vice-President Sara Duterte went ballistic, launching her biggest missile at President Bongbong Marcos (BBM), First Lady Lisa Marcos, and Speaker Martin Romualdez. In a pre-dawn online news conference the other Sat-urday, she said, “I have spoken to someone. I said, ‘If I am killed, go and kill BBM, Liza Araneta, and Martin Romualdez.’ No joke. No joke. I said, ‘Do not stop until they are dead,’ and the person said ‘yes.’”
The salvo was in response to advice from her political allies that she stay safe while she was in the House of Representatives because Romualdez supposedly wants her dead, alleging that she is the biggest threat to his political ambitions.
BBM and Romualdez returned fire. In the afternoon of the Monday following Duterte’s blast, BBM vowed, “I will fight back.” He found the Vice-President’s pronouncements “alarming.” “If it’s that easy to plan the assassination of a president, how much more for ordinary citizens? Such criminal attempts should not be ignored,” said he.
He said the whole “drama” would not have escalated to this point if the Vice-President had faced the House of Representatives’ investigation into the alleged misuse of confidential funds in the Office of the Vice-President and the De-partment of Education. “The truth should not be killed. This issue would have been over if only the sworn oath to be a public servant had been fulfilled, to tell the truth and not to obstruct.”
Marcos then declared that the rule of law must be upheld in a democratic country. “The law must be upheld whatever the situation may be, to whoever it may apply,” he added.
A few hours later, Speaker Romualdez addressed the members of the House of Representatives. In agitated tone, he declared:
“Let me be clear: This is no longer a joke; this is not a normal manner of speaking. This is a direct threat to our democracy, to our government, and the security of the country.
“Such a statement is not just reckless — it is dangerous. It sends a chilling message to our people, a message that violence can be contemplated by those in positions of power. This is not just an affront to the individuals targeted; it is an attack on the very foundation of our government. It is an insult to every Filipino who believes in the rule of law and the sanctity of life. Violence has no place in our society. It is irreconcilable with the values that have taught and guided us for years — values of respect, and amicable peaceful conflict resolution.
“We cannot let this pass as mere rhetoric. The gravity of such a confession demands accountability. It demands answers. It demands that we, as the representatives of the Filipino people, take a stand to protect our democ-racy from any and all forms of threats.
“My colleagues, I call on you to stand with me in defending this institution. Let us fight for the dignity of Congress. Let us fight for the truth. Let us fight for democracy. To the Filipino people, I assure you that this House will not waver in its commitment to transparency, accountability, and service. We should not allow individuals to ruin this great nation with their manipulative tactics, their troll armies, or their few blind followers.”
Enemies of Sara Duterte joined the fray. That same Monday, the Makabayan bloc in the House of Representatives held a protest rally in front of the Batasan building calling for the impeachment of VP Duterte. Like the President, the Vice-President may be impeached for graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.
BBM’s foot soldiers fired shots at Sara. On Tuesday, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) issued a subpoena to Sara Duterte regarding her threat against BBM. The subpoena, dated Nov. 25, ordered Duterte to appear before the NBI Main Office in Pasay City at 9 a.m. on Friday, Nov. 29, “to shed light on the investigation for alleged grave threats against President Ferdinand Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and Speaker Martin Romualdez and possible viola-tion of the Anti-Terrorism Act.”
Section 4 of RA 11479 states that terrorism is committed by any person who, regardless of the stage of execution, engages in acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person, or endangers a person’s life.
On Wednesday, Presidential Adviser for Poverty Alleviation Secretary Larry Gadon filed a complaint before the Supreme Court for the disbarment of Duterte, a lawyer, from the legal profession. He asked the Court to initiate a motu pro-prio proceeding of disbarment against Duterte following her threat to have the President and Speaker killed.
On microblogging platform X, former senator Leila de Lima called Sara Duterte’s pronouncements as part of a “political drama staged by the Office of the Vice-President to divert the issue from its plunder of confidential funds.”
Diversionary tactics are common in warfare. They have been employed in major and crucial offensives. In World War II, the Allied Forces deceived the German High Command into expecting them to launch the liberation of France from German occupation at Pas-de-Calais instead of Normandy.
The same tactic was used during the Persian Gulf War. The Central Command of the UN coalition forces tricked Sadam Hussein into believing they would begin the freeing of Kuwait from his stranglehold with an amphibious assault on the Kuwaiti coast instead of a ground offensive into Iraqi territory.
Diversionary tactics are also used in a defensive way. One such tactic is shock action. It is intended to disrupt the offensive of the adversary. In the liberation of the Philippines, the landing of American forces was delayed by the waves of kamikaze attacks on the US Naval fleet in Leyte Gulf in October 1944. A kamikaze was a bomber airplane that dove into an enemy warship to cause it heavy damage.
That is what beleaguered Sara Duterte used to disrupt the relentless offensive of her numerous adversaries — pre-dawn shock action. Her adversaries’ leaders, President Bongbong Marcos and Speaker Martin Romualdez, were jolted.
But by Thursday last week, it looked like Sara’s diversionary tactic was a monumental blunder as she had fired her biggest shell and she was surrounded by her enemies. She seemed bound to meet the same fate of the ka-mikaze squadrons that attacked the US Navy fleet in Leyte Gulf in October 1944 — self-destruction.
Came the fateful day, Friday, Nov. 29, the day she was to appear before the NBI Main Office “to shed light on the investigation for alleged grave threats against President Ferdinand Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and Speaker Martin Romualdez and possible violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act.” She was a no show.
NBI Director Jaime Santiago explained that Duterte had requested resetting of her appearance having “learned late that her appearance before the House committee hearing was cancelled.” Santiago accepted the excuse and granted the request and reset Duterte’s appearance for Dec. 11.
It is strange that Santiago accepted the lame excuse. The cancellation of her appearance before the House committee was announced through a televised press conference in the early afternoon of Thursday. Several chan-nels announced it in their evening newscast that Thursday. The major dailies reported the cancellation in their Nov. 29 issues.
Strange too is Santiago resetting the appearance when he had said the day before that if Duterte didn’t show up, he would submit to the Department of Justice prosecutors the evidence he has regarding her threat against the President. He also said he might accommodate Duterte’s request for the questions she would be asked, “given her position as the country’s second highest official.”
After Justice Undersecretary Jesse Andres remarked that the Ombudsman had the authority to discipline and investigate government officials, Ombudsman Manuel Martires said his office could take over the investigations by the NBI and the House committee. Martires was appointed to the Supreme Court and subsequently as Ombudsman by President Rodrigo Duterte. They were contemporaries at San Beda Law and are Lex Talionis Fraternitas brothers.
That same day, BBM said he did not support calls for the impeachment of Sara Duterte. “It will tie down the House, it will tie down the Senate. It will just take up all our time and for what? For nothing, for nothing. None of this will help improve a single Filipino life,” he explained.
Impeachment is a power vested by the Constitution on the House of Representatives alone. The Speaker of the House, not the President, has the prerogative to oppose calls for impeachment. By expressing his objection to the impeachment of Sara, he is prompting Speaker Romualdez, also a target of Sara’s sinister plan, to dissuade the congressmen from impeaching Sara.
Why the softening of the BBM offensive? Has Sara Duterte’s diversionary tactic exposed BBM’s vulnerability — the military, the Senate, the Supreme Court, even the Office of the Ombudsman? Asked if, like Sara, he has al-ready reached “a point of no return,” he answered, “Never say never.” Is a truce in the offing?
Has Sara Duterte’s diversionary tactic of shock action turned the tide?
Oscar P. Lagman, Jr. has been a keen observer of Philippine politics since the late 1950s.
