During the fifth day of Vice-President Sara Duterte-Carpio's impeachment trial, a National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) official clarified the origin of the term "Operation Romanov" and the focus of the bureau's investigation.
NBI Bangsamoro Autonomous Region Director Jeremy C. Lotoc told the Senate impeachment court that investigators determined the term originated from Vice-President Duterte-Carpio's camp and understood it as a purported threat against the First Family rather than the Vice-President.
Lotoc explained that investigators focused on determining whether Vice-President Duterte-Carpio'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 Vice-President Duterte-Carpio.
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.
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 Vice-President Duterte-Carpio.
Lotoc said the bureau had invited the Vice-President to participate in the investigation through a Dec. 2, 2024 letter but received no response.
The defense also resumed questioning Lotoc on typographical errors in the bureau's affidavit of investigation, arguing that these undermined its findings.
Lotoc maintained that the clerical mistakes did not affect the evidence gathered by investigators.
The NBI earlier recommended filing three counts of grave threats and one count of inciting to sedition against Vice-President Duterte-Carpio following its investigation.
Defense lawyer Vinluan maintained that Vice-President Duterte-Carpio's remarks were merely responses to questions during the online briefing and did not amount to criminal threats.
Vice-President Duterte-Carpio earlier denied the allegations, saying the impeachment complaint contained no evidence.
Lawmakers urged the Senate impeachment court to focus on the evidence presented against Vice-President Duterte-Carpio instead of clerical or typographical errors in investigative documents.
House prosecution adviser and spokesman Robert Ace S. 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.
Barbers said the real question is whether the alleged discrepancies are material, did they change the facts, did they alter the evidence, did they affect the integrity of the investigation, or prejudice the respondent's rights?
Zambales Rep. Jefferson "Jay" F. Khonghun said the alleged threats remain captured on video and the NBI's findings are already part of the trial record.
Khonghun said the documents may be questioned, but Vice-President Duterte-Carpio's defense must still address the evidence.
ACT Teachers Party-list Rep. Antonio L. Tinio likewise accused the defense of diverting attention from the central issue.
Tinio said there is a video, 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.
Political science professor Ederson DT. Tapia 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.
Tapia said impeachment exists to determine whether a public official remains fit to hold office. The strength, credibility, and sufficiency of the evidence should therefore remain the central consideration.
Political science instructor Hansley A. Juliano 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.
Juliano said circumstance and context is paramount, not strict grammar. 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.
