By Kaela Patricia B. Gabriel and Pexcel John Bacon
A NATIONAL Bureau of Investigation (NBI) official told the Senate impeachment court on Tuesday that investigators determined the term “Operation Romanov” originated from Vice-President (VP) Sara Duterte-Carpio’s camp and understood it as a purported threat against the First Family rather than the Vice-President.
NBI Bangsamoro Autonomous Region Director Jeremy C. Lotoc made the clarification during the fifth day of Ms. Duterte’s impeachment trial after senator-judges asked why the bureau did not investigate references to “Operation Romanov” that surfaced during the Vice-President’s Nov. 23, 2024 online briefing.
“Insofar as our investigation is concerned, since we could not validate Operation Romanov, I think it started with the sibling of the Vice-President,” Mr. Lotoc told the impeachment court.
He said investigators focused on determining whether Ms. Duterte’s public statements constituted criminal offenses rather than verifying the existence of “Operation Romanov.”
Senator Panfilo “Ping” M. Lacson asked why the supposed operation had not been included in the investigation, saying he had initially understood it to be a threat against Ms. Duterte.
Mr. Lotoc replied that the Cybercrime Division’s mandate was limited to investigating crimes committed through information and communications technology and the Vice-President’s public utterances.
“As far as the Cybercrime Division is concerned, our focus is crimes committed through or with the use of information and communication technology,” he said. “Whether there is an Operation Romanov, either the intelligence service or our director could answer that.”
Earlier, defense lawyer Mark C. Vinluan asked why the NBI did not investigate statements made during the same online briefing referring to alleged threats against Ms. Duterte.
Mr. Lotoc said the bureau had invited the Vice-President to participate in the investigation through a Dec. 2, 2024 letter but received no response.
“Precisely that’s the reason why we sent the Dec. 2 letter, for Vice-President Sara to shed light on our investigation,” he said.
The defense also resumed questioning Mr. Lotoc on typographical errors in the bureau’s affidavit of investigation, arguing that these undermined its findings.
Mr. Lotoc maintained that the clerical mistakes did not affect the evidence gathered by investigators.
“The existence of these typographical errors does not alter the fact that the video exists, does not alter the fact that the Vice-President uttered those statements, and does not alter the fact that the NBI has findings,” he said.
The NBI earlier recommended filing three counts of grave threats and one count of inciting to sedition against Ms. Duterte following its investigation.
Mr. Vinluan maintained that the Vice-President’s remarks were merely responses to questions during the online briefing and did not amount to criminal threats.
“It was never aimed directly at BBM (Bongbong Marcos), the First Lady and former Speaker Martin Romualdez,” he said. “There was no threat to begin with.”
Ms. Duterte earlier denied the allegations, saying the impeachment complaint contained no evidence.
“Repeatedly claiming that there were threats when none existed, inventing an assassin where there was none, and fabricating evidence to support those claims does not transform fiction into fact,” she said.
‘NOT A SPELLING CONTEST’
Meanwhile, lawmakers urged the Senate impeachment court to focus on the evidence presented against the Vice-President instead of clerical or typographical errors in investigative documents.
In separate statements, House prosecution adviser and spokesman Robert Ace S. Barbers, Zambales Rep. Jefferson “Jay” F. Khonghun and ACT Teachers Party-list Rep. Antonio L. Tinio said the impeachment case should be decided on its merits rather than on technical issues raised by the defense.
Mr. Barbers said the impeachment trial was “not a spelling contest,” arguing that the key issue is whether the discrepancies materially affected the investigation or prejudiced the respondent’s rights.
“The real question is whether the alleged discrepancies are material,” he said. “Did they change the facts? Did they alter the evidence? Did they affect the integrity of the investigation or prejudice the respondent’s rights?”
Mr. Khonghun said the alleged threats remain captured on video and the NBI’s findings are already part of the trial record.
“The threats are on video, and the NBI’s findings are already on the record,” he said in Filipino. “The documents may be questioned, but Vice-President Duterte’s defense must still address the evidence.”
Mr. Tinio likewise accused the defense of diverting attention from the central issue.
“There is a video,” he said. “There are death threats against President Marcos, Liza Araneta-Marcos and Martin Romualdez. This is not a speech. This is not a political opinion. This is a crime.”
Ederson DT. Tapia, a political science professor at the University of Makati, said procedural rules are needed to protect fairness and due process, but minor clerical or typographical errors should not outweigh the substance of an impeachment case if they do not prejudice the parties’ rights.
“Impeachment exists to determine whether a public official remains fit to hold office,” Mr. Tapia said via Facebook Messenger. “The strength, credibility, and sufficiency of the evidence should therefore remain the central consideration.”
Hansley A. Juliano, a political science instructor at Ateneo de Manila University, said clerical and typographical errors become relevant only if they can be shown to be more than ordinary human mistakes and can be verified against original or comparable documents.
“Circumstance and context is paramount, not strict grammar,” he said via Messenger. He added that while procedural issues are commonly raised in civil and criminal cases, impeachment allows a broader consideration of evidence as a constitutional accountability process.
previous post
