A party-list representative on Monday asked the Department of Justice (DOJ) to take a second look at the ruling by the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office last month, which thumbed down the grave threats complaint filed against former president Rodrigo R. Duterte.

In her petition, Deputy Minority Leader and ACT Party-list Rep. France Castro said the ruling by the city prosecutors against her complaint “undermines efforts to address online threats, contributes to normalizing violent rhetoric, and erodes public trust in the legal system’s ability to handle explicit threats from those in power, effectively deterring dissent.”

“The Office of the City Prosecutor (of Quezon City) committed grave abuse of discretion when it refused to give due evidentiary value to the complainant’s sworn statement that she personally watched, downloaded and saved the video footages containing respondent’s threatening remarks,” the petition read.

Castro also questioned the prosecutor’s rationale finding fault in her complaint for allegedly failing to include an authenticated or certified copy of the supposed online publication of the threat.

“There is nothing in the rules that provides for an ‘authentication or certification’ from social media platforms or from the television network where the electronic document is taken,” she said.

In its 14-page resolution last January, the prosecutors dismissed the statements made by Duterte in his television program “Gikan sa Masa, Para sa Masa” aired by Sonshine Media Network International (SMNI) last October.

The resolution was signed by Senior Assistant City Prosecutors Ulric Q. Badiola and Rosanna Morales Montojo, and Deputy City Prosecutor Leilia R. Llanes.

In his television program, Duterte defended his daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte-Carpio, from criticisms by opposition parties over the confidential intelligence funds of the Office of the Vice President, and denounced supposed supporters of the Communist Party of the Philippines – New People’s Army.

The prosecutors also noted that the complainant failed to obtain the necessary authentication from social media platforms and SMNI.

“Absent of any proper authentication, this office cannot just take on its face value the genuineness and veracity of the subject threatening remarks/utterances/statements allegedly perpetrated by the respondent,” they said. (PNA) 

Photo credit: Facebook/ACTteachers