Impeachment Trial of VP Sara Duterte

The prosecution panel has completed its presentation of witnesses for the fourth article of impeachable offenses. The next steps involve preparing for subsequent articles, including a confidential function.

The NBI has narrowed down the list of persons of interest to less than 20 in its hunt for the alleged hitman enlisted by Vice President Sara Duterte. 'Too much speaking time?' Senator Raffy Tulfo raised a complaint that minority senators have been given longer speaking time during the impeachment trial. Philippine Foreign Secretary Maria Theresa Lazaro brought up Ayungin and a racist 'monkey' video during her meeting with China's Wang Yi, addressing grievances against Beijing, Rappler reports.

— stream ended.

The prosecution in Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial concluded its case against her on Article 4, accusing her of contracting the alleged assassination of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and others. National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Melvin Matibag served as the last witness for the prosecution. The defense team cross-examined Matibag but did not request a redirect examination. Lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro stated that no further questioning was necessary. Meanwhile, the impeachment court issued subpoenas to various financial institutions and approved new witnesses for future hearings, GMA News reports.

An NBI official told House of Representatives that investigators examined a sworn affidavit from former Davao Death Squad member Arturo Lascañas as part of open-source intelligence gathering.

Defense counsel pressed the witness on whether the agency issued a subpoena or directly verified the document with Lascañas, which the official acknowledged was not done.

"Kaya kung hapo ikinekuento yung bumpangayari para mo makita kung paano mo kami dumating dun sa punto na ginamit po doon sa pattern of violence," the witness said ["That is why I am recounting what happened, so you can see how we arrived at the point where it was used in the pattern of violence"].

Defense counsel questioned the relevance of a 2011 video showing Vice President Sara Duterte confronting a court sheriff during cross-examination on House of Representatives.

An NBI official testified that investigators reviewed the 15-year-old incident under a five-factor framework for establishing an alleged pattern of behavior.

"Under po dung sa five factors namin, ang tiniting na dito nating sa pattern of violence is the historical behavior," the witness said ["Under our five factors, what we look at here in the pattern of violence is historical behavior"].

A lead in the investigation, speaking in impeachment court, mentioned that the level of security of the information is such that it does not need to be known by the cybercrime division, as per a statement made in the presence of multiple officials and attendees at a Philippine Senate session.

The NBI director Melvin Matibag said there is an ongoing investigation into grave threats and inciting to sedition, but no ongoing investigation into alleged threats against VP Sara Duterte. The director also mentioned that no subpoena has been issued under their leadership.

Speaking on Impeachment Traila, the NBI director clarified that the ongoing investigation pertains to the leads on the alleged person involved in the threats against Vice President Sara Duterte, and that no subpena has been issued to such person under his leadership.

Speaking on House of Representatives, the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte has started with the Sergeant at Arms directing all persons to keep silent under pain of penalty while the impeachment court is in session. The clerk of court has been instructed to call the roll., said the Presiding Officer of the Impeachment Court, as seen on the House of Representatives broadcast.

— stream ended.

The prosecution told the press conference on House of Representatives that the National Bureau of Investigation did not treat the VP Sara Duterte threat as a media story — it formed a special task force to investigate it.

A panel member said this showed the threat was taken seriously at the institutional level, not just flagged as a viral video. "Kumikilos na ang aming mga investigative agencies and bodies natin," the prosecutor said ["Our investigative agencies and bodies are already acting on it."] The NBI's special task force formation, the panel argued, independently corroborates its witness's testimony that the threat was "concerted and active."

The prosecution rebutted the defense's hyperbole argument Wednesday by citing what it says is Vice President Sara Duterte's own admission, speaking on House of Representatives.

A member of the prosecution panel said the VP did not merely utter a vague threat in anger — she allegedly identified the targets by name and gave explicit instructions to a person she had already contacted. "Sinabi niya, be relentless, huwag titigil hanggang hindi mo sila napapatay," the prosecutor said ["She said, be relentless, don't stop until you've killed them."] The panel said she named President Bongbong Marcos, Lisa Marcos and Martin Romualdez as the intended targets.

"It will be a completely different story if it was just uttered in a single event," the prosecutor said. The panel argues the VP went further — admitting she had already arranged an agreement to carry out the plan and gave operational instructions.

The prosecution panel, speaking on House of Representatives, said the NBI director's account of the threat against the President carried the weight of an official institutional finding, not a personal opinion.

"This is the report of the NBI, it's institutional report that he already testified to," a panel member said at the July 22 press conference, in remarks that appeared directed at the defense's effort to undermine the director's credibility on cross-examination.

A member of the prosecution panel, speaking at the House of Representatives press conference on July 22, listed the words that kept appearing across evidence and testimony in the grave threats case — and called them a cause for alarm.

"Ang maririnig mo nalang palagi: ulo, ugot, living, hukay, bloodbath," the panel member said. ["All you keep hearing: head, uproot, living, grave, bloodbath."]

The speaker told House of Representatives reporters the threat was never conditional. "Talagang active threat po talaga siya, which continues to be," he added. ["It is truly an active threat, which continues to be."]

The prosecution panel, speaking at the House of Representatives press conference, laid out the questions it says the impeachment court must now answer: whether the vice president's words and actions show she still deserves to hold the country's second-highest office, whether she betrayed the public trust placed in her, and whether she committed a serious violation of the Constitution.

"Para sa amin maliwanag na kung sinasabi ng ebidensya na nailatag namin dito," a panel member said. ["For us, the evidence we have presented speaks clearly."]

The panel added it would wait for the defense to present its own evidence before the court reaches a final decision, but said it was confident the prosecution's case had already been made.

The NBI director who testified yesterday concluded, after examining the totality of circumstances, that the vice president's threat against the president was not an isolated online clip, a prosecution panel member told reporters at the House of Representatives press conference on July 22, 2026.

"Hindi siya isang viral video lamang. Ito ay isang concerted and active threat," the panel member said, quoting the NBI director's finding. ["It was not merely a viral video. It is a concerted and active threat."]

The characterization, the panel said, was reached by the NBI director only after a thorough investigation — and was not shaken during cross-examination.

The prosecution panel laid out a three-step chronology at a House of Representatives press conference on July 22, 2026, arguing the grave-threats case rests on a pattern, not a single video.

"Months before, sinabi na niya, gusto niyang pugotain ang ulong presidente," a panel member said ["Months before, she already said she wanted to cut off the president's head"]. That was followed, the panel said, by the November 23 video admission that a contract to kill the president existed. Then, three days after that video, the statements were still not retracted.

"So para sa amin napakalinaw na ang ebidensya na inilatag namin sa kaso na ito," the member told House of Representatives ["So for us the evidence we have laid out in this case is very clear"].

The prosecution panel told a press conference at the House of Representatives on July 22, 2026 that it voluntarily dropped witnesses from its grave-threats case because the evidence already on record was sufficient — a disclosure that signals confidence rather than weakness, a panel member said.

"We don't even need — we could actually do with less witnesses, and in fact we did drop witnesses," a panel member said, speaking on House of Representatives. "I think it speaks of the confidence of the prosecution that the point has been made."

The panel added that the evidence and testimony presented under cross-examination were not shaken: "Hindi natibag yung mga testimonyal," one member said ["The testimonies were not dismantled"].

The prosecution panel, speaking at a House of Representatives press conference on July 22, said the evidence against Vice President Sara Duterte shows a pattern that long predates the viral November 23 video.

"Months before, sinabi na niya, gusto niyang pugutan ng ulong Presidente," a panellist said ["Months before, she had already said she wanted to cut off the President's head"]. That was followed, the panel said, by the video admission of an alleged contract to kill the president — and then, crucially, no retraction. "3 days after hindi nga bina-withdraw ang panangit na salitaan niya," the speaker added ["Three days after, she did not withdraw her threatening words"].

"Para sa amin napakalinaw na ng ebidensya na inilatag namin sa kasong ito," the panellist concluded ["For us, the evidence we have laid out in this case is already very clear"].

The prosecution panel told a House of Representatives press conference Wednesday that the defence's cross-examination of the NBI witness failed on its own terms, saying every challenge to her credibility and motives missed the point.

"Walang direktong connection dun sa naging paksa ng kanyang testimonia," one panellist said ["There was no direct connection to the subject matter of her testimony"] — referring to the NBI's investigation into alleged threats against the president's life.

The panel added that the defence's use of visual aids and a PowerPoint-style presentation represented only a cosmetic shift. "Yung mga visual aids, parang PowerPoint presentation medyo patuits thumbs lang talaga yung dating," the same speaker said ["The visual aids, the PowerPoint presentation — it just came across as a thumbs-up kind of thing, nothing more"], suggesting the presentation had style but not substance.

A reporter asked the prosecution panel directly at the House of Representatives press briefing whether the testimony and evidence filed under Article IV — the grave threats article — is enough to convince senator-judges to convict Vice President Sara Duterte.

A panel member said the prosecution would not pre-empt the court's decision but added: "Malaki ang tiwala namin at kumpiyansa sa ebidensyang namin na inatag na pahuhul dito sa Grave Threats" ["We have great trust and confidence in the evidence we have laid out here on Grave Threats"].

He said the final day of testimony on Article IV is proceeding as expected.

The prosecution panel said it is confident the evidence laid before the impeachment court on the grave threats article is sufficient, telling reporters at the House of Representatives briefing on July 22 that doubt about the viral video has been eliminated.

"Wala ng katanungan kung totoo ba itong video," a panel member said — ["There is no longer any question whether this video is real"] — adding that the footage shows the vice president's alleged agreement to have the president killed. He said the prosecution respects the impeachment court's authority to decide but expressed strong confidence in the case presented under Article IV.

The panel member also said the admission captured in the video makes the central allegation plain: "Napakaliwanag na din kung bakit ang kadahilanan" ["It is already very clear why and for what reason"].

The prosecution panel called on Filipinos to follow the impeachment proceedings directly, warning that online videos were clipping footage and misrepresenting what happened in court, panel members said at the House of Representatives press conference on July 22.

"May mga videos, taking some portions of the trial and taking it out of context kaya naliligaw ang mga tao," a panel member said ["There are videos taking some portions of the trial and taking them out of context, which is misleading people"].

"Walang direktong connection dun sa naging paksa ng kanyang testimonia," the panel said of the defense's questions to the NBI witness ["There was no direct connection to the subject of her testimony"].

House prosecutor Ramon Rodrigo Gutierrez said he visibly bristled when the defense cross-examined the NBI director by targeting her character rather than her testimony, speaking at a House of Representatives press conference on July 22.

"Medyo tumas ng kongtiyong kilay ko na parang may antics sila," Gutierrez said ["My eyebrow went up a little — it felt like they had antics"]. He said the line of attack missed: "Tinitimag siya pero kulang" ["They tried to shake her but it wasn't enough"].

Gutierrez stressed the cross-examination produced no direct connection to the substance of the NBI director's testimony. The director, he noted, is a congresswoman and chair of the Committee on Women — "a strong independent public servant," he said.