I’M saying this in the wake of the controversy generated by the “death threats” hurled by Vice President Sara Duterte against President Bongbong Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and Speaker Martin Romualdez in what could be the first in the country’s history.

It would be on Philippine history as it was the first time that the country’s second highest official — the one who will automatically succeed the President if he is incapacitated or is fully unable to do his job — has publicly confessed she has commissioned a “hitman” to kill her three targets.

The question now in the minds of every right-minded person is can anybody threaten to kill another man — and worst, the top target is the President — and simply get away with it. Was it really a joke?

I’ve made some research regarding “threatening a President” and would compare the situation in our country and that in the United States. In the U.S., threatening the American president is a federal felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. It consists of knowingly and willfully mailing or otherwise making “any threats to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict great bodily harm upon the president of the United States.”

The law also includes presidential candidates, vice presidents and former presidents of the U.S. The Secret Service investigates suspected violations of this law and monitors who have a history of threatening the president.

In the Philippines, threatening to kill somebody or seriously injure someone is considered a grave threat which is punishable under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code.

Such public remarks may constitute a crime of threatening to inflict a wrong on a person or his family and is punishable by a jail term and fine. The law also allows someone who has been threatened with death or physical harm to file for a Temporary Protection Order if he fears for his safety.

The penalty for grave threats depends on the circumstances of the threat. The general penalty is arresto mayor and a fine of up to P100,000. However, if the threat was made to extort money or impose conditions, the punishment is prision mayor, which is 6 years and 1 day to 12 years in prison.

This brings to my mind an incident in May 2020 when agents of the National Bureau of Investigation arrested a 25-year-old teacher named Ronnel Mas who was accused of offering a P50-million bounty on his Twitter account to anyone who would kill then President Rodrigo Duterte.

The NBI said the teacher from Sta. Cruz, Zambales posted the offer on his Twitter account on May 5, 2020. “I will give 50 Million reward kung sino makakapatay kay (to whoever would kill) Duterte. #NotoABSCBNShutDown,” read his tweet which went viral and prompted many Duterte supporters to also threaten the teacher.

The accused was charged for inciting to sedition related to Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and violation of RA 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials following his arrest.

The teacher cried as he apologized for his act. However, then Justice Secretary Menandro Guevarra said Mas’ apology does not extinguish his criminal liability. Now the Solicitor General, Guevarra said “apology is not one of the grounds for extinguishing criminal liability. I cannot feloniously injure another and get away with it by merely saying sorry.”

However, an Olongapo City court dismissed the criminal charges against the teacher saying the latter was illegally arrested and his subsequent media confession did not cure the invalidity of the arrest. It turned out that the NBI arrested Mas without any warrant after a co-teacher identified him as the owner of that deleted Twitter account.

On Monday, PNP-CIDG director Brigadier General Nick Torre said they are investigating what really transpired during the outburst of Vice President Duterte and would be making recommendations to proper authorities as soon as they have finished their probe.

One priority and probably the most obvious one, he explained, is the need to find out if there really was a “hitman” already contacted by the country’s second highest official to kill the First Couple and Speaker Romualdez.

“Nandoon tayo sa level na ‘yun, ‘yun talaga ang abot naming — kung totoo nga bang may hitman, kung totoong baka wala namang hitman o baka naman ‘yan ay figure of speech na naman. ‘Yun ang ating mga titingnan d’yan. And we will be including all of those and considering those in our investigation,” the PNP-CIDG director said.

As PBBM lashed back at his constitutional successor’s latest tirades against him which he described as a diversionary tactic to stifle Congress’ search for truth on her office’s use of confidential funds, officials of the DOJ vowed to “apply the full force of the law” in exacting criminal and other legal accountability for the death threats made by VP Duterte.

The President said he would not tolerate such “criminal threats” against him. “As the head of the executive department, as well as all other public servants, I have a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and the laws. As a democratic country, we need to uphold the rule of law.”

“It is not right to stifle elected leaders’ search for the truth. It should not be subjected to ‘tokhang,’” the President said in Filipino. He also referred to Duterte’s pronouncements as “troubling,” citing how these were “laden with brazen expletives coupled with a threat to kill some of us.”

Let’s now wait and see what will happen when the DOJ issues a subpoena to allowed the VP to shed light on her remarks that government lawyers, the Presidential Security Command, the PNP and the National Security Council considered an “active threat” against the country’s highest elective official.

AUTHOR PROFILE

Alfred P. Dalizon