MARCH 4, 2026 — When Quezon City Rep. Bong Suntay tried to brush off Vice President Sara Duterte’s chilling death threat against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. as nothing more than a non-serious remark, he probably thought he was injecting a bit of levity into a tense impeachment hearing. But what he got instead was a sharp, sobering reality check from Negros Oriental Rep. Janice Degamo — whose husband, the late Governor Roel Degamo, was assassinated in broad daylight three years ago.

This clash of perspectives is more than just a heated exchange in Congress. It’s a reminder of how words, especially from those in power, can carry consequences far beyond the walls of Batasan.

Suntay’s “logic” vs. lived experience

Suntay argued that Duterte’s televised threat in November 2024, where she claimed to have tapped an assassin to kill Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and then-Speaker Martin Romualdez, was not credible. 

His reasoning? “Common sense dictated that if you are really serious in killing someone, you do not announce it to the whole world,” he said.

It was a neat soundbite, but Degamo wasn’t having it. She reminded the committee that her husband received “conditional threats” before his murder. 

“The threats at first were conditional, like if you do this, something will happen,” she recalled. “But then even though they were conditional, the fear and intimidation they caused were very real. Conditional threats can turn into actual harm.”

For someone who has lived through the horror of losing a loved one to political violence, the notion that threats are harmless unless carried out is not just naïve — it’s dangerous.

The weight of words in high office

Degamo’s point was simple yet powerful: threats from ordinary people may be brushed aside, but threats from someone holding national office carry far-reaching consequences. 

“Words from someone in her position carry weight,” she said. 

And she’s right.

When the Vice President of the Philippines openly talks about assassinations — even hypothetically — it doesn’t just rattle political opponents. It undermines public trust, intimidates officials, and destabilizes institutions. 

Manila Rep. Benny Abante Jr. echoed this, describing Duterte’s remarks as “a red flag for national stability and constitutional order.”

Abante went further, questioning whether Suntay was “lawyering” for Duterte. He pointed out that unlike Suntay’s wife — whom the congressman jokingly said threatens to “kill him” when annoyed — the Vice President is not a private citizen. She has access to resources, influence, and security apparatus. That makes her words infinitely more dangerous.

Why we should care

If threats from the second-highest official in the land are dismissed as jokes, what message does that send to the public? That intimidation is acceptable? That violence is negotiable?

We live in a country where political killings are not abstract headlines — they are lived realities. From governors to barangay captains, countless officials have been gunned down after receiving “conditional threats.” Degamo’s testimony is a painful reminder that dismissing such warnings as harmless is a luxury only those untouched by violence can afford.

This impeachment hearing is a test of our collective tolerance for misconduct in high office. Suntay’s attempt to downplay Duterte’s threat may have been framed as “common sense,” but Degamo’s intervention exposed the flaw in that logic. In a nation scarred by political violence, threats are never just words.

So whose side are you on? Are you siding with Suntay, who insists Duterte’s threat was just empty talk, or with Degamo, who knows all too well that even “conditional” threats can end in bloodshed?

(Image: @cong.bongsuntay | Instagram)