NBI Chief Confirms DOJ Directed Investigation

During the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, NBI BARMM Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc confirmed that the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted its investigation into the Vice President's alleged threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. following a directive from the Department of Justice (DOJ).

The confirmation came during the cross-examination by defense counsel Atty. Mark Vinluan.

"Why Should I Not Follow?"

Asked why the NBI proceeded with the investigation based on the DOJ's instruction, Lotoc defended the agency's actions.

"It's the Department of Justice. Why should I not follow?"

He explained that the DOJ has supervisory authority over the NBI and may direct investigations when warranted under existing law.

DOJ Authority Under Republic Act No. 10867

Lotoc cited Republic Act No. 10867, the law reorganizing and modernizing the NBI.

According to his testimony, the statute authorizes the DOJ to direct the NBI to investigate matters whenever necessary or when public interest requires government action.

The testimony was presented as part of the defense's effort to examine how the investigation into Vice President Duterte's statements was initiated and conducted.

Defense Explores Independence of the Investigation

Through its questioning, the defense sought clarification on whether the investigation originated from an independent determination by the NBI or from instructions issued by the Department of Justice.

Lotoc maintained that complying with the DOJ's directive was consistent with the agency's legal mandate and organizational structure.

No ruling was made during this exchange regarding the legal significance of the DOJ's instruction, as the impeachment proceedings continued with further witness examination.

Reportorial Commentary

One of the recurring themes during cross-examination has been the process by which government agencies initiate investigations. The defense's questions focused on institutional independence and the chain of authority within law enforcement, while the witness emphasized the statutory relationship between the DOJ and the NBI.

Whether the manner in which the investigation was initiated has any bearing on the impeachment case remains a matter for the Senate Impeachment Court to assess alongside the entirety of the evidence presented. The court's role is to determine the relevance and weight of each piece of testimony under the applicable constitutional standards.

Bible Verse & Exegesis

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." — Romans 13:1 (ESV)

Exegesis

Romans 13 teaches that public authority carries legitimate responsibilities within the framework of law. At the same time, lawful authority is expected to be exercised with justice, integrity, and accountability. In democratic systems, legal institutions are entrusted with specific powers and duties, while courts and constitutional processes exist to review how those powers are exercised.

VP Sara Duterte on Alleged Teves Visit: “I Neither Confirm Nor Deny”

duterte-legacy

December 26, 2025•1 min read

Vice President Sara Duterte addressed questions surrounding an alleged visit to detained former Negros Oriental lawmaker Arnolfo Teves Jr., saying she would neither confirm nor deny the matter.

Speaking to reporters, Duterte reiterated that she does not know Ramil Madriga, the individual linking her to various allegations, and stressed that claims being circulated remain unsupported by evidence. “Kung gusto nilang magsabi, magsabi sila. Basta ang masasabi ko, hindi ko kilala si Ramil Madriga,” she said.

The Vice President’s remarks come amid heightened public scrutiny following statements from the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), which earlier clarified that a jail visit in Camp Bagong Diwa was for Arnolfo Teves Jr., not Madriga.

Duterte maintained that she will not be drawn into speculation or rumor, emphasizing that allegations must be supported by proof, not repetition. She also noted that individuals making claims appear to be acting under pressure, describing the accusations as part of a pattern of noise amplified without substantiation.

Legal observers note that refusing to confirm or deny does not equate to admission or concealment, but can be a deliberate stance to avoid fueling conjecture—particularly when facts have already been clarified by official agencies.

🦅 Agila note:
Silence is not evasion when facts are already on record. Sometimes restraint is the clearest answer.

Bible Verse:
“When words are many, sin is not absent, but he who holds his tongue is wise.” — Proverbs 10:19