Week 3 of Vice President Sara Duterte's Impeachment Trial Part 2

It's time to take a look at week three of Vice President Sara Dutere's impeachment trial. What is going to be examined is all the follies being committed while court is in session. The trial is slated to last for 92 days which could take it into next year. But Senator Tulfo says the trial is being delayed by Senators seeking to lecture the lawyers. 

https://mb.com.ph/2026/07/22/erwin-tulfo-law-101-lectures-of-senator-judges-stalling-vp-sara-trial

For Senator Erwin Tulfo, if anything is slowing down Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial, it's senator-judges who insist on giving "Law 101" lectures during the proceedings.

In an ambush interview on Wednesday, July 22, Tulfo said some senator-judges spend too much time explaining legal concepts instead of focusing on the evidence and witness testimonies presented before the court.

"Some of my fellow senator-judges seem to feel the need to lecture the lawyers and the prosecution. We waste time," Tulfo said.

He said senator-judges should simply point out errors committed by either party instead of delivering what he described as "Law 101" lectures.

"If there's a mistake, then just point it out. Say, 'That's wrong.' But if you're going to give a 'Law 101' lecture, the discussion just goes off track," he said.

According to Tulfo, discussions should remain centered on the evidence and testimonies relevant to the impeachment case, rather than revisiting basic legal principles or questioning the legal knowledge of the parties.

"We should simply focus on the evidence and the testimony. But if we keep going back to what was taught in law school—saying things like, 'This is what you should have learned,' or implying, 'You didn't learn this'—it's not relevant to the issue. That's what makes the proceedings drag on," he added.

Tulfo, however, said the Senate impeachment court should not rush the proceedings at the expense of a thorough examination of the evidence.

He said that while they acknowledge the desire to speed up the trial, he stressed that senator-judges must careful

ly review the evidence to ensure that no crucial pieces are overlooked or left inadequately explained. He added that simply presenting evidence is not enough, as it must also be properly examined and understood before the court reaches a decision.

Which Senators are using this stalling tactic? Regrettably, Tulfo does not say. 

Though he is no lawyer, Senator Robin Padilla is using his own stalling techniques. Bizarrely he questioned whether or not the prosecution was being biased and one-sided!

https://mb.com.ph/2026/07/22/robin-padilla-tells-prosecution-sana-hindi-one-sided

Senator-judge Robin Padilla told the prosecution on Wednesday, July 22, not to be "one-sided" as he questioned the credibility of their witnesses.

During Wednesday's impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, Padilla aimed at the House prosecution panel, particularly in the witnesses it had chosen to present before the Senate impeachment court.

Padilla appealed to the prosecution to avoid presenting witnesses whose credibility could be questioned, saying the impeachment court should not rely on individuals allegedly facing perjury complaints.

"The person on trial here was elected by 32 million Filipinos," Padilla said, urging the prosecution to be more cautious in selecting its witnesses.

He added that he had even filed a legislative proposal seeking stiffer penalties for perjury, arguing that those who repeatedly change their testimony should face harsher consequences.

"With all due respect, we were able to verify already that there are no cases pending against the prosecution witnesses," she said.

She also pointed out that even a criminal conviction does not automatically disqualify a witness, unless the judgment is already final and the offense is punishable by more than one year and involves moral turpitude.

"You know, that was a very good answer. I just hope the prosecution isn't being one-sided," he said.

Before he could elaborate on his claim, the exchange drew audible reactions inside the impeachment court, prompting Presiding Officer Francis "Chiz" Escudero to call for order.

"The sergeant-at-arms, by authority of the Senate President, is directed to kindly maintain order in the court," Escudero said.

Meanwhile, in a press conference, Senate Impeachment Court spokesperson lawyer Regie Tongol was asked about the ruckus that occurred when Padilla made the "one-sided" remark.

He explained that the prosecution panel was making a gesture that they were supposed to take a side.

"I think the House prosecution panel was simply making the point that they're the prosecution. It's like they're saying, 'We're the prosecution, so naturally we have a side," Tongol said.

Clearly Padilla is only interested in discrediting witnesses rather than deal with evidence presented. Being a convicted, and pardoned, criminal surely Padilla knows the job of the prosecution is to prove the guilt of the person on trial. They are supposed to be biased!

The defense is using the same tactic as Padilla. During cross examination of NBI Chief Matibag it was insinuated that he was biased because his wife supported the impeachment complaint. 

https://mb.com.ph/2026/07/21/matibag-rejects-bias-claim-after-vp-duterte-lawyer-says-wife-was-among-impeachment-endorsers

National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Melvin Matibag has rejected an allegation of bias after his wife was brought up by the defense panel as one of the endorsers of the impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte at the House of Representatives.

During the cross-examination on Matibag on Tuesday, July 21, Duterte's defense counsel Mark Vinluan questioned the witness over a potential conflict of interest after the NBI chief acknowledged that his wife, Laguna 1st district Rep. Maria Rene Ann Matibag, was indeed among the endorsers of House Resolution (HR) No. 989 which sought to impeach the Vice President.

In one of the sequences during the cross, Matibag requested to state something "in order to save time" as Vinluan asked him credibility-testing questions to test the freedom from bias, if any.

Matibag stated: "In order to save time in the question of the Defense counsel, I think he's going to the position if my wife endorses the articles of impeachment, so that we save time and it's on record in matter of Public notice: She is my wife, she's one of the endorsers of the impeachment."

Vinluan then asked him that despite that spousal relationship he admitted, he still decided to appear and testify in the Senate impeachment trial.

"My decision to be a witness is by the virtue of a subpoena and issues of the honorable court and by the invitation of the Committee on Justice of the prosecution," the NBI chief said.

"However, the job of my wife as a legislator, is totally from me being the director of the [NBI]," he added.

Prior to Matibag's acknowledgment, Vinluan showed the document bearing the signature of the lady solon, but Matibag said he was in no authority to confirm the signature even if she was his wife.

The defense counsel questioned that while Matibag could recgnized his agent's signature, he cannot do the same to his wife's.

Matibag responded saying: "It appears to be her signature but I have not confronted with documents so that I can compare it."

"With the NBI, it's different, I testified earlier that it was presented to me, and I asked him if he signed it, and I'm familiar to his signature because he's always making submissions to my office," he said.

Vinluan's line of questioning pertaining to Matibag's wife was continuously objected to by the prosecution panel.

However, presiding officer Senator Francis "Chiz" Escudero overruled it, and said "It tests the freedom from bias if any of the witness regarding his testimony."

Even if he is biased against Duterte what does that have to do with the evidence he submitted? Specifically that Sara's threat to kill Marcos was taken seriously and they have a list of names of possible hitmen Sara may have contracted. But this has been Sara's defense tactic from day one. Disregard the evidence and focus on technicalities. 

Finally, Sara Duterte wants the Senate to pay for her defense team's catering. Did she forget this is a trial and not an awards show?

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2268349/sara-duterte-asks-senate-to-foot-bill-for-exclusive-catering-at-trial

The Office of the Vice President (OVP) asked the Senate to shoulder the costs of catering services for Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense team, support staff, and witnesses during her impeachment trial, according to a July 7 letter signed by Duterte.

“As these arrangements are required solely in connection with these proceedings, the OVP respectfully requests that the Senate shoulder the reasonable costs of food and beverage and catering services for the defense team, support staff, and witnesses,” the letter read.

The letter, addressed to Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian, also sought several logistical arrangements for the duration of the trial.

Among these was a request that all food and beverages for the defense team, support staff, and witnesses be served exclusively in their designated holding room.

The OVP likewise asked that all food and beverages be sourced, prepared, and served exclusively by its accredited caterer.

“To address legitimate security concerns and to provide the necessary level of assurance to all concerned personnel and witnesses, all food and beverage shall be sourced, prepared, and served exclusively by the OVP’s accredited caterer,” the letter stated.

As of posting time, it was unclear whether the Senate had approved the requests.

The request comes after Senate Secretary Renato Bantug said on July 10 that Duterte’s camp, through lawyer Zuleika Lopez, the vice president’s chief of staff, had inquired about bringing its own equipment and hiring its own caterer for its holding area during the impeachment trial. Bantug said the request was not unusual, noting that the prosecution team had also brought its own caterer.

In a message to the Inquirer on July 10, the OVP said the requested equipment and catering services were intended for everyone in the holding area and for coverage-related purposes.

Duterte is facing impeachment over allegations of amassing unexplained wealth, bribery, misuse of confidential funds, and making grave threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.

The last thing anyone needs to be doing during the trial is eating and drinking. Perhaps bring your own lunch. The Senate has not officially declined this bizarre request but they did say they cannot afford to pay for her teams catering. 

Week 3 of Vice President Sara Duterte's Impeachment Trial Part 1

Week three of Vice President Sara Dutere's impeachment trial began with a big win for the prosecution. The Senate has subpoenaed her financial records. 

https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1279857

The Senate sitting as an impeachment court on Monday granted the House prosecution's requests to subpoena bank records, tax documents and Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) records involving Vice President Sara Duterte.

Presiding Officer Francis "Chiz" Escudero, who read the court's rulings, said the requested records met the legal requirements for the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum.

"They are reasonably described, readily identifiable, and prima facie relevant and material to the allegations under Article II," Escudero said.

The court ordered the production of peso-denominated bank records of Duterte, her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, their joint accounts, Carpio Lawyers law firm and 19 corporate entities with established prima facie links to the respondent. It also granted subpoenas for their AMLC records.

However, requests covering JTC Group of Companies Philippines Inc. and Pikimong Pikimong Philippines Corporation were denied after the prosecution failed to establish sufficient links to Duterte or Carpio.

The court also limited the subpoenas to peso-denominated bank accounts, denying the request insofar as foreign currency deposits are concerned.

The impeachment court likewise granted the prosecution's request to subpoena the Bureau of Internal Revenue for Duterte's tax records, allowing documents from 2007 to 2021 solely to establish a financial baseline for assessing her assets, financial transactions and business interests during her present term.

Escudero emphasized that the records could not be used to introduce new impeachable offenses.

"This Court is not determining tax deficiencies or civil liabilities, which remain within the province of the BIR. It is exercising its constitutional mandate to determine public accountability under the Articles of Impeachment," Escudero said.

The court also ruled that the issuance of the BIR subpoena does not automatically authorize disclosure of the tax records, noting that the BIR commissioner may invoke applicable exceptions under the National Internal Revenue Code in responding to the order.

Banks, the AMLC and the BIR were directed to submit their respective returns or records to the Clerk of Court on July 30 at 9 a.m., with AMLC documents to be first reviewed in camera by the presiding officer before any release to the parties.

House prosecution panel adviser and spokesperson Robert Ace Barbers welcomed the ruling, describing it as a decisive affirmation that no public official may invoke confidentiality to shield evidence that is directly relevant to determining accountability in an impeachment trial.

“Today’s vote is a victory for truth, transparency, and accountability. The impeachment court has made it clear that the search for truth cannot be frustrated by claims of confidentiality when the Constitution itself demands a full and fair examination of the evidence,” Barbers said in a statement.

Barbers said the subpoenaed records will enable the prosecution to examine documentary evidence that may establish whether there is a disparity between the Vice President’s declared income and assets and the financial transactions reflected in banking, tax and AMLC records.

“These financial records are indispensable in determining whether the allegations of unexplained wealth are supported by documentary evidence. They will provide the factual basis upon which the impeachment court can objectively assess the charges under Article II,” he said.

Barbers added that the court’s ruling effectively resolves the legal issues raised by the defense regarding the applicability of the Bank Secrecy Law and other confidentiality statutes in relation to the subpoena requests, allowing the trial to proceed toward the presentation of material financial evidence before the impeachment court.

He likewise emphasized that the prosecution remains committed to presenting only evidence that is relevant, competent and admissible, noting that earlier decisions to streamline the witness list demonstrate the panel’s determination to conduct an efficient trial focused on the strongest documentary and testimonial evidence.

“The Filipino people deserve nothing less than the whole truth. This impeachment trial is not about personalities or politics—it is about public accountability. Every peso entrusted by the people must be accounted for, and every public official, regardless of position, must answer for allegations of corruption and unexplained wealth before the Constitution and the Filipino nation,” Barbers said.

However there appears to be a caveat for the release of her tax records. President Marcos, who is now Sara's mortal enemy, has to approve the release. This has set up a Catch-22 situation for him. 

https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2026/7/20/-marcos-consent-to-unseal-sara-duterte-s-bir-records-not-an-act-against-her-2029

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. may choose whether or not to authorize the Bureau of Internal Revenue to disclose Vice President Sara Duterte's tax records, impeachment court spokesperson Reginald Tongol said Monday. 

He stressed that if the president grants such authority, it should not be interpreted as an act against the Vice President.

“It is not really an act against the vice president. I think that will be unfair to characterize the president’s giving permission to the BIR commissioner for the disclosure to be seen as act against the vice president.”

Tongol said the President's action would be an acknowledgment of the authority of a co-equal branch of government.

“It is actually an act of respect to a co-equal branch of government and since the impeachment court is officially acted on the request for subpoena and the BIR commissioner has remedies in order for him not to be in trouble.”

Tongol added that Commissioner Charlito Martin Mendoza must first secure the President's authorization before complying with the subpoena, with July 30 set as the deadline for compliance.

Day 7 of the impeachment trial of Duterte saw the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, grant the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to the BIR. 

The subpoena stems from the prosecution's request to obtain the income tax and bank records of Duterte and her husband, Manases Carpio.

However, under Section 71 of the National Internal Revenue Code, the BIR is bound by confidentiality provisions and cannot disclose or unseal tax records without proper authority.

To release the requested documents, the BIR must first obtain the express authority or consent of the President.

He is caught between a rock and a hard place here. But if he does not defer to the Senate then that opens a can of worms too. 

Senator Robin Padilla was against the subpoena of Saras tax and bank records because apparently it threatens him. 

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2267140/padilla-explains-why-he-opposed-issuance-of-subpoenas

Senator-judge Robinhood Padilla on Monday opposed the impeachment court’s decision to subpoena Vice President Sara Duterte’s financial and tax records, stating that the same should be done to other impeachable officials.

Padilla made the pronouncement after the Senate impeachment court, through Senator-Judge and Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero, granted subpoenas for Vice President Sara Duterte’s financial and tax records.

In a manifestation, Padilla said the “standards” being applied in issuing a subpoena for Duterte’s financial and tax records should likewise be enforced upon all impeachable officials, regardless of their names or positions.

This, he said, is to show the public that no official is being singled out.

“If this is the standard we are setting, then let us all open up our bank records, let us all open them, to show the public that we are not playing favorites here,” said Padilla.

The senator-judge also took the opportunity to call for support in passing into law the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill.

“Because if this is the case, as if we are being watched and observed, it is not good for the people. Let us remember that we are equal before God and the law,” said Padilla.

“And I ask you to put on record my objection to this ruling,” he added.

It should be noted, however, that only the vice president is currently facing an impeachment trial among all impeachable government officials.

Senator-judge Pia Cayetano, in a separate manifestation, meanwhile, said it would have been better for the court to only issue subpoenas on records from 2022 to 2026, instead of from 2007.

“We could have considered starting at 2022, and if there’s more kung doon pa lang it already shows that unexplained from 22 to 2026, there may be no reason to go back and at least respect that part of the records,” said Cayetano.

“…That’s our way of showing respect for the persons who are brought here to trial,” she added.

However, Cayetano said she will submit to the ruling as one of the senator-judges.

Concurrently, other senator-judges, specifically Alan Peter Cayetano, Imee Marcos, Camille Villar, and Loren Legarda, have all expressed their willingness to submit in writing their manifestations or objections to Escudero’s ruling.

Sure, let them all open their bank records!!! But did Padilla forget this is an impeachment trial? Those records are evidence. He is showing his true colors are for Duterte.

 In fact, many Senators are waving that flag in their actions. 

https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2026/7/20/inside-the-session-hall-subtle-shows-of-support-among-senators-of-the-same-bloc-2341

The continuation of the impeachment trial against Vice President Sara Duterte on Monday led to the issuance of subpoenas for Duterte’s financial records after the prosecution and defense fielded questions on the law as well as on the necessity and the propriety of issuing them.

Spectators inside the session hall also saw subtle shows of support among senators in the same bloc.

In a so far rare occasion of raised voices at the impeachment court, Sen. Erwin Tulfo called out Sen. Robin Padilla for using it as a forum to air issues unrelated to the trial.

Padilla had taken the floor to dispute the Office of the Ombudsman’s remark that he had ignored an order to submit his counter-affidavit in relation to Sen. Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa’s escape from the Senate compound in May.

The senator-judge did this in front of the impeachment court, much to Tulfo’s dismay. He said the trial proper should focus on Duterte and that senators can explain their own issues elsewhere.

While Tulfo was talking, Padilla stood up and approached the podium, seemingly suppressing a smile.

Eventually, Senate Minority Leader Alan Peter Cayetano defended Padilla, saying it was a matter that concerned the court’s integrity.

Cayetano has, since the trial started, made references to the proceedings' alleged problems of credibility.

He had also used the first half hour of the hearing last Thursday to air his anger over a National Bureau of Investigation probe into the 2019 SEA Games, calling it an attempt to intimidate him. Cayetano was chair of the organizing committee of the games.

In defense of his insistence on arguing legal principles — he has pointed out that he and his sister Sen. Pia Cayetano are among the few lawyers at the Senate — he said he would listen to a senator with a background in medicine if the topic was about the medical field.

Padilla was seen nodding in agreement to the minority senator’s statement.

When the court took a brief break at 4 p.m., Sens. Vicente Sotto III, Francis Pangilinan, Raffy and Erwin Tulfo, and Panfilo Lacson of the majority bloc were seen having a discussion..

Padilla remained in his seat on the other side of the court.

It also took some time for some senator-judges to return from the break, with only 11 inside the session hall by 4:08 p.m.

Before Escudero announced the ruling granting the request for subpoenas, Alan Cayetano spent more than 10 minutes sitting by the ledge separating the senator-judges from the gallery.

Padilla briefly joined Cayetano there before both took the floor to say they disagreed with parts of Escudero's decision.

Senators may also submit written manifestations on their position on the presiding officer's ruling, Escudero said.

Cayetano's problems stem from the NIB Chief, who is witness, saying he is investigating Cayetano. He thinks this casts doubt upon the credibility of the court. 

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2264302/cayetano-slams-nbi-chief-matibag-over-sea-games-probe-announcement

Senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano on Wednesday criticized National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Melvin Matibag for announcing the agency’s plan to probe the procurements for the 2019 Southeast Asian Games held in the Philippines.

Cayetano, who headed the Philippine SEA Games Organizing Committee during the administration of former President Rodrigo Duterte, made the manifestation at the start of the sixth day of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, a day after Matibag’s announcement.

“Investigate whatever you want to investigate. You want to investigate why I grew a beard? Investigate it. No problem with me. But don’t announce it because it will affect the integrity of the court,” Cayetano said in Filipino.

He also reiterated his earlier statement to the NBI chief after the agency’s agents attempted to arrest Senator Bato Dela Rosa over alleged crimes against humanity, charges Dela Rosa faces before the International Criminal Court.

“Director, we were not taken down, so don’t try to take down this representation or this impeachment court because what you’re doing is not helping,” Cayetano said in Filipino.

Senator-judge Pia Cayetano, sister of Sen. Alan, also took the podium to express her dismay over Matibag’s actions, just a week before he is set to testify as a witness in the trial.

“I am bothered. There’s no jurisdiction in the world that allows a judge to be pressured and intimidated,” she said.

She then addressed her colleagues in the session hall: “Why would you allow a director who was called to be a witness next week to brag that he’s going to investigate?”

Pia Cayetano also vowed that if the same happened to any of their colleagues, she would stand up for them regardless of their views.

“I am upset to hear this. I will stand up for each one of you. I don’t care which side you are on, I will stand up for you if somebody tries to intimidate you,” she said.

What proof is there Matibag is trying to pressure and intimidate Cayetano? It sounds like the plea of a guilty conscience. With several members of the Senate in jail awaiting trial and others under investigation there isn't a whole lot of credibility in that body. 

Meanwhile Vice President Sara Duterte has snubbed the trial entirely and has embarked on a world tour. 

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2268220/solon-sara-duterte-foreign-trip-amid-trial-betrayal-of-public-trust

Manila Rep. Bienvenido Abante, Jr. on Wednesday criticized Vice President Sara Duterte for embarking on a five-country “personal trip” while she faces an impeachment trial, saying her travel abroad is tantamount to “betrayal of public trust.”

In a statement, Abante said Duterte’s foreign trip goes beyond her constitutional mandate as the nation’s second-highest official and displays a blatant disregard in the impeachment process. 

On Tuesday, Duterte’s office said her July 16 to 31 travel plan includes stops in Qatar, Germany, the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland and the Netherlands. The itinerary covers engagements with migrant Filipino workers, it said, adding that the government won’t bankroll the trip.

“That constitutes betrayal of public trust,” Abante, who endorsed an impeachment complaint against Duterte that was eventually elevated by the House of Representatives to the Senate, said. “She’s highly irresponsible as VP.”

He described Duterte’s trip as merely a “junket,” as he rebuked the vice president for prioritizing foreign engagements instead of facing her ouster case in the Senate. “She violated the real intent of the Constitution.”

Impeachment is a constitutional remedy that allows Congress to remove high officials who have committed “culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.”

“Public officials should demonstrate respect for that process through their actions, especially while the proceedings are ongoing,” Abante said.

Duterte has skipped the proceedings against her so far, instead offering a general denial of wrongdoing as she called efforts to remove her from office as politically motivated. She has remained defiant, though acknowledging the trial may leave her “bloodied but unbowed.”

She faces an impeachment trial for accusations that she misused hundreds of millions of pesos in confidential funds, amassed unexplained wealth, bribed officials and threatened the lives of President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr, the first lady and a former House speaker.

She is certainly not taking this trial seriously. Despite the mountains of evidence against her Sara thinks she can shrug it off. Perhaps that will change as the trial continues.

Week 2 Of Sara Duterte's Impeachment Trial: I Am A Communist

It's week two of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial. This week the prosecution finished up on the grave threat charge. In 2024 Sara Duterte made a Facebook video where she claimed that if she were to be killed she had hired a hitman to assassinate President Marcos, his wife, and the Speaker of the House. Yet Sara claims there is no evidence this happened!

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2263453/sara-duterte-maintains-kill-plot-vs-marcos-not-supported-by-evidence

Vice President Sara Duterte on Tuesday maintained that the impeachment complaint involving her alleged assassination plot against President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Marcos and former Speaker Martin Romualdez is not supported by evidence.

Duterte made the statement shortly before the commencement of Tuesday’s proceedings, where her chief of staff, Zuleika Lopez, is expected to be called as the House prosecution panel’s third witness.

“On Day 4 of the impeachment trial, the country witnessed what I have been saying all along: the complaint is not supported by evidence,” said Duterte in a statement.

Duterte specified the fourth day of the trial as her defense team pointed out inconsistencies in the dates of the affidavit and docket numbers in the files of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) during one of her lawyers Mark Vinluan’s cross-examination of the prosecution’s second witness, NBI-Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM) Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc.

“Repeatedly claiming that there were threats when none existed, inventing an assassin where there was none, and fabricating evidence to support those claims does not transform fiction into fact. Instead, such actions undermine the integrity of public institutions, erode public trust, waste public resources, and corrupt the search for truth,” she added.

Duterte stressed that impeachment proceedings should be grounded only on credible evidence, not speculation, manufactured narratives or unsupported allegations.

“The rule of law depends on facts, not fiction,” said Duterte.

The Senate impeachment court is currently tackling Article IV of the impeachment complaints against Duterte, which involve the kill plot the vice president herself revealed against Marcos, his wife and cousin.

She cannot be this daft. The video wherein she made the threat IS the evidence. Here is the threat she made:

"Don't worry, Ma'am, about my security, because I have already talked to someone. I told him, if they kill me, kill BBM [President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.], Liza Araneta [the First Lady], and Martin Romualdez [former House Speaker]. No joke, no joke. I have already given my instructions, Ma'am. If I die, I said, 'do not stop until you kill them.' And then he said yes."

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2260041/sara-dutertes-kill-threat-vs-marcos-absolute-says-witness

It need not be proven that there was an actual hitman or that the threats were real. (Never mind that she twice repeated it was no joke.) What has to be proven is that she made the threat and is thus unfit for office. This is an impeachment trial not a criminal trial. The difference is crucial.

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2263855/kapunan-defense-tried-to-divert-us-from-impeachment-to-criminal-case

The defense panel tried to divert discussions on the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte to a criminal matter and deliberately misinform the public about the evidence needed for a conviction, counsel for the prosecution Lorna Kapunan claimed on Tuesday.

In a press briefing after the fifth day of the trial, Kapunan said that they were thankful to senator-judges who steered back discussions to the merits of an impeachment case, after the defense mentioned that grave threats cases should be tried before municipal trial courts (MTCs) or regional trial courts (RTCs), and inciting to sedition raps before MTCs.

“What they have tried to do, and we are very appreciative that they brought it back to discussions of impeachable offense because we were talking about prison penalties, that it should be MTC that should handle grave threats cases and inciting to sedition […] There is a deliberate attempt to misinform the viewing public,” Kapunan told reporters.

“This is not a criminal case. The criminal case, yes, that is pending with the NBI (National Bureau of Investigation), one count of sedition and three counts of grave threats; that is the criminal case pending before the DOJ (Department of Justice). And that was what the defense focused on, the criminal case. But wait, this is so far from the pending criminal case with the DOJ,” she added.

According to Kapunan, discussions of an impeachment case should focus on the fitness of an impeachable official to serve, based on the issues raised against her — in this case, alleged betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution.

“What we are talking about here is not the criminal cases. We are talking about fitness. A public official who makes statements like that, who has shown her emotional instability, who has shown how she can, and is capable of, carrying out her threats — what is that? Is that punishable by six months’ imprisonment?” Kapunan said.

The fact that this is an impeachment trial and not a criminal trial makes all the difference when it comes to the burden of proof. All the prosecution needs to do is prove that Sara is unfit to serve as Vice President. 

Sara and her defense team claim that she made those threats in response to Operation Romanov which was a plan to take her out. But the NBI says Operation Romanov was a threat made to the Marcoses by Sara's brother. 

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2264874/ex-nbi-director-oplan-romanov-a-threat-vs-marcoses-not-vp-duterte

Former National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Jaime Santiago said the so-called “Operation Romanov” is a plot to supposedly eliminate the Marcos family — not Vice President Sara Duterte.

Santiago was NBI director when Duterte held an online press conference in November 2024, where she supposedly said that she already contacted an individual to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and House Speaker Martin Romualdez should she be killed first. He served as the leader of the bureau from June 2024 to January 2025. 

In an interview, Santiago explained that the term “Oplan Romanov” first came from Davao City Mayor Baste Duterte during a forum in Davao in January 2024.

He recalled that the younger Duterte warned Marcos that before he sleeps, he must think about “Romanov” and what happened to their family in 1986 when his father, former President Ferdinand Marcos Sr., was ousted through the People Power Revolution.

The former NBI director then noted that he was surprised when vlogger Princess Maui brought up the “Oplan Romanov” during the online press conference as supposedly a threat to the vice president’s life. 

“Oplan Romanov was Baste’s warning to the president and to the first family. Why did it become VP Sara’s? It’s not VP Sara’s,” Santiago noted in the interview on Wednesday.

“Then you see VP Sara, she herself said that this is the second time I heard about Romanov,” he added.

Is the former NBI Chief a liar or is Sara Duterte a liar? 

The shenanigans in court were not limited to the lawyers. Two Senator-Judges also threw their hat into the ring. First up is Cayetano.

https://mb.com.ph/2026/07/14/alan-cayetano-defends-mayor-baste-vs-allegations-linking-him-to-romanov-threat

Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano on Tuesday, July 14 defended Davao City Mayor Sebastian “Baste” Duterte from allegations he could be involved in the so-called “Operation Romanov.” 

Cayetano pointed this out after a sudden twist in the testimony of National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) -BARMM Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc emerged during the fifth day of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.

Lotoc, responding to the queries of Senator-Judges Raffy Tulfo and Panfilo “Ping” Lacson, reversed an earlier impression and affirmed that the supposed target of the assassination plot was actually not the Vice President but President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. and his family.

In his testimony before the Senate Impeachment Court, Lotoc said that NBI investigators were able to come across a speech by Mayor Duterte in a January rally where he allegedly uttered a warning against President Marcos to think about what happened to Russia’s Romanov family.

The Romanov family was the last imperial dynasty to rule Russia and were executed by Bolshevik revolutionaries in 1917.

“It’s fair that you mentioned him. It’s fair that you mentioned him in your investigation. But I don’t think we should draw a conclusion here that Mayor Baste was threatening the First Family,” Cayetano reasoned out.

“Because remember, there’s a thin line between a warning and a threat…So if I tell you, Mr. Witness, since we’re both lawyers, be careful of what you say, that could be a fair warning, right? That could not be a threat, right?” he pointed out.

“If there is a threat that was relayed to you and I don’t like it, I can file charges against you. But that could be an illegal threat, right? But it can also be a warning. So I just want that on the record, Mr. Presiding Officer, Mr. Senate President. Because everyone’s watching. And in the same manner, we have to be fair to the First Family,” he said.

But Cayetano urged the Impeachment Court to refrain from making immediate conclusions about the Davao city mayor.

“We have to be fair also to Mayor Baste and to the Duterte’s, rather than draw a conclusion that there was an actual (threat). Mentioning Romanov and Oplan Romanov are two different things. It may be the same thing, it may be a different thing…We don’t know,” he emphasized.

“So let’s just be circumspect, and careful from making conclusions,” the senator appealed.

Oh, so it was just a warning to Marcos that he should remember the Romanov Family? The family that was murdered by the communists? Here are his full comments.

“Just a simple message sa atong Pangulo (for our President): from now on, before you go to bed, think of the Romanovs, think of Benito Mussolini and his wife, think of what happened to you in 1986. Maybe you will reconsider the direction that you are taking,” Duterte said during his 12-minute speech at the prayer rally. 

https://mindanews.com/top-stories/2024/01/remember-edsa-baste-tells-president-marcos-jr/

Duterte referenced the murder of the Romanov Family, the execution of the Mussolinis, and the Marcos family fleeing the Philippines. Why mention the Romanovs and Mussolinis knowing that they died violent deaths at the hand of the people unless that was a veiled threat?

Unsurprisingly Senator Padilla out-clowned everyone by claiming he is a communist!

https://mb.com.ph/2026/07/14/komunista-ako-robin-padilla-likens-dutertes-to-romanovs-who-fought-communists

Senator-judge Robin Padilla on Tuesday, July 14 drew parallels between the fall of Russia's Romanov dynasty and the Duterte family as he questioned a National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) official during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.

Questioning NBI Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc, Padilla shifted the discussion to the historical background of the Romanovs, arguing that understanding the context was essential to interpreting references to "Operation Romanov" made during Duterte's controversial November 2024 press conference.

Padilla asked Lotoc whether he knew the history of the Romanovs and who was responsible for the execution of Tsar Nicholas II and his family.

Lotoc replied that he only knew the Romanovs were connected to the Russian tsar but admitted he could not recall the full historical background.

Padilla then asserted that it was communists who executed the Romanov family, before drawing a comparison with the Marcoses and the Dutertes.

"Because, I am sitting next to one of the Marcos family members. We all know... Apo Lakay Ferdinand Marcos Sr. was the number one fighter against the communists here in the Philippines," Padilla said.

He went on to say that former president Rodrigo Duterte was the second Philippine president to fight communists and suggested that the "Romanov" reference should be viewed as a threat against political families leading the country's anti-communist campaign.

"I'm a communist," Padilla said.

"Shouldn’t we think of ‘Romanov’ as referring to the threat that enters the families of leaders in our country who are fighting against communists?" Padilla asked.

Lotoc declined to adopt the senator's interpretation, saying the matter falls under the NBI's intelligence service.

“As far as the investigation into whether or not there is a ‘Romanov’ or ‘Operation Romanov,’ that falls under our intelligence service. I think the one who can answer that is our director," he said.

Padilla continued by arguing that Davao City Mayor Sebastian "Baste" Duterte's mention of the Romanovs should be understood in the context of threats against leaders fighting communist insurgents. He also pointed out that Vice President Duterte succeeded her father as chairperson of the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC).

When Padilla asked whether he agreed that Sara Duterte faced similar threats because she took over the government's anti-insurgency campaign, Lotoc replied that he had no personal knowledge of the alleged threat.

"I don't have personal knowledge, sir," he said.

Padilla then pressed Lotoc on whether he had personal knowledge that the Vice President had hired an assassin to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

Lotoc maintained that he did not.

Earlier in the day's proceedings, Lotoc testified that the NBI Cybercrime Division did not consider information about the alleged "Operation Romanov" from a certain "Princess Maui" to be reliable and said the term "Romanov" appeared to have originally been used by Baste Duterte as a warning directed at President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and his family, rather than at Vice President Duterte.

Padilla said "former president Rodrigo Duterte was the second Philippine president to fight communists" which is not true because every President since Marcos Sr. has been fighting the Communists and Duterte was a friend and protector to them while he was Mayor of Davao. 

He then "suggested that the "Romanov" reference should be viewed as a threat against political families leading the country's anti-communist campaign." Which then led to his bizarre declaration that he is a communist! Is he then a threat to the Duterte's? He apparently did not think it through!

Later Padilla attempted to clarify his statement.

The senator said Marxist-Leninist and Maoist ideologies led to armed revolutions, civil wars, and widespread violence in different parts of the world. He added that this form of armed communism reached the Philippines and fueled more than five decades of armed conflict, claiming the lives of thousands of Filipinos, including many young people who were recruited into the movement.

Padilla emphasized that this was not the form of communism he was referring to.

Instead, he said he was speaking about the older concept of collective cooperation and equitable sharing of wealth, which he said could be seen in the practice of Christian Communism among early Christians and in the Mu'akhat system established by the Prophet Muhammad in Medina, where members of the community shared resources and supported one another as an expression of brotherhood.

"My position is against violence and armed struggle. What I am referring to is the spirit of brotherhood, compassion for others, and social justice that had long been practiced by early Christian and Muslim communities," Padilla said.

https://mb.com.ph/2026/07/17/robin-padilla-clarifies-communism-remark-referred-to-equality-not-armed-struggle

That only confuses the matter even more. The social justice practiced by Christian and Muslim communities is not Communism. When one calls themself a communist that means they are a Marxist of some kind. 

But perhaps the worst thing of all is some Senators are leaving for hours at a time during testimony! Not just a quick bathroom recess but hours!

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2262817/senator-judges-seen-leaving-session-hall-during-impeachment-trial

Some senator-judges on Monday were observed leaving the session hall for almost an hour while the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte was ongoing.

Senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano was observed leaving the hall at 2:51 p.m., and did not return until 3:48 p.m.

A few minutes later, at 2:53 p.m. Senator-judge Robin Padilla followed, but has yet to return as of 4:19 p.m.

Senator-judges Camille and Mark Villar also exited at around 2:56 p.m. Camille returned at 3:39 p.m., while Mark came back over an hour later at 4:16 p.m. 

Meanwhile, Senator-judge Imee Marcos left the session hall twice—once at 3:01 p.m., coming back at 3:18 p.m., then leaving again at 3:20 p.m, before returning at 3:37 p.m.

The Inquirer has asked the offices of the mentioned senator-judges for their sudden and temporary exit, but they have yet to respond, as of writing.

All senator-judges that left the floor temporarily are members of the Senate minority bloc.

However, in a press conference after the conclusion of the 4th day of Duterte’s trial, impeachment court spokesperson Regie Tongol said that senator-judges can freely go in and out of the plenary even while the trial is ongoing.

“The senator judges can go out of the plenary. Meron silang monitor at speaker doon sa Senators’ lounge, so kapag nag-take ng break sila, nag-CR sila, naririnig pa rin nila ang nangyayari sa floor,” said Tongol.

Tongol also explained that even if they go outside the chamber, senator-judges are considered present throughout the proceeding if they were there during the rollcall.

Furthermore, senator-judges can also be late to the trial.

You know what this means?  It means they are not taking this trial seriously. It means they have made up their minds and are going to acquit Sara no matter what. This is a complete betrayal of the public trust. 

Sara Duterte's Lawyers Admit She Is Guilty In Bizarre Defense

Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial has finally begun. With 92 scheduled days of testimony and only 3 days per week allotted for the trial it will be months before this is over. That is 30 weeks meaning this trial will likely last until next year. Perhaps it will be fun to take a look at the arguments of Sara's defense team which up until now has been all about protocol while ignoring the substantial issues at play.

In week one of the trial the prosecution began with Sara's threat to assassinate President Marcos and his wife. The witness they called is an NBI expert and the whole point of his testimony was to ascertain the authenticity of the video. Sara's defense team's arguments are mind blowing. 

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2260230/defense-argument-sara-dutertes-threat-not-a-high-crime

Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense team on Wednesday sought to dismantle the testimony of the prosecution’s first witness in her impeachment trial, arguing that the charge arising from the “threats” she made in 2024 against President Marcos, his wife Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former Speaker Martin Romualdez “are not ‘other high crimes’ contemplated by the Constitution as grounds for impeachment.”

On the third day of the trial before the Senate impeachment court, defense lawyers focused their cross-examination on National Bureau of Investigation senior agent John Mark Calilung, questioning the basis of the bureau’s investigation and pointing to what they described as major gaps in the evidence linking Duterte to an alleged assassination plot.

Defense counsel Mark Vinluan argued that House prosecutors failed to present evidence that Duterte had hired an assassin to kill the Marcos couple and Romualdez.

So, they admit the video is real and a threat was made but it does not rise to the level of a "high crime" because there is no evidence she hired an assassin. Nevermind the fact that proving the existence of an assassin was not the point for this witness. Also, do Sara's threats amount to a low crime?

“When VP Sara uttered those words, she was not responding as Sara Duterte, the Vice President, but as Sara Duterte the wife, mother, daughter and sister, who only sought to protect herself and her family. Operation Romanov is in place, and the threat against their lives is real,” Vinluan told the impeachment court.

He claimed Duterte had been subjected to “unauthorized intelligence and surveillance operations by government agents that exposed her family to security threats, thereby causing intense trauma and uncontrollable fear.”

“Her homes in Davao and Manila were profiled, and this is proven by classified gazing reports. Her trusted security personnel were removed,” Vinluan added.

The proceedings centered on Article IV of the impeachment complaint, which accuses Duterte of issuing grave threats against Marcos, the first lady, and his cousin Romualdez during an online press briefing on Nov. 23, 2024.

Operation Romanov? What proof is there that such a plot was enacted against the Duterte family? The argument here is that because Duterte felt threatened she was justified in threatening to kill the President! 

“There is no proof of any contracting of an assassin. The prosecution admitted that the video does not prove any fact other than its existence. The prosecution has no other competent evidence to prove that VP Sara contracted an assassin,” Vinluan told the court.

He argued that the prosecution itself had acknowledged that Duterte’s remarks did not “100 percent” establish that she had hired an assassin, and that those statements alone could not be considered a high crime or an impeachable offense.

The phrase “other high crimes” is contained in Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution as part of a list of impeachable offenses. Also on the list are culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust.

Vinluan said Duterte’s remarks should instead be viewed in the “proper context” of the threats against her and her family.

“And while her response (to the threats) was unconventional, it was justified,” Vinluan said.

There it is! The defense ADMITS Sara made grave threats to the lives of the President, his wife, and the Speaker of the House. The defense is that these were justified because she felt threatened and because no assassin has been produced these threats do not rise to the level of a high crime and thus are not an impeachable offense. 

More than that, the defense claimed she was echoing the sentiments of ordinary Filipinos!

The defense lawyer also said that the alleged grave threats and inciting to sedition falls under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan trial court and first level courts, and should not be considered as high crimes under the Constitution.

“She never incited sedition. She merely echoed the voice of ordinary Filipinos. Her message that day only reflected what was already in their hearts and minds. There was no betrayal of public trust. She actually upheld the people’s trust as she spoke for and behalf of the people,” Vinluan said.

https://www.manilatimes.net/2026/07/09/news/witness-on-assassin-to-testify-at-impeachment-trial-prosecutors-say/2381093/amp

Is there really a desire to kill the President and his wife in the hearts and minds of ordinary Filipinos? What an incredible way to dump on your constituency. What a horrible defense. 

Threatening to kill the President or anyone else is a grave threat and is a crime in the Philippines whether or not one has procured a hitman. 

Grave threats, A282 Revised Penal Code

1. Concept

Grave threats – refers to the crime of threatening another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime.

a. Legal basis

Art. 282. Grave threats. – Any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime, shall suffer:

1. The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the crime he threatened to commit, if the offender shall have made the threat demanding money or imposing any other condition, even though not unlawful, and said offender shall have attained his purpose. If the offender shall not have attained his purpose, the penalty lower by two (2) degrees shall be imposed.

If the threat be made in writing or through a middleman, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period.

2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000), if the threat shall not have been made subject to a condition. (As amended by R.A. 10951) Article 284. Bond for good behavior. – In all cases falling within the two next preceding articles [Articles 282 and 283], the person making the threats may also be required to give bail not to molest the person threatened, or if he shall fail to give such bail, he shall be sentenced to destierro.

https://legalresource.ph/grave-threats-a282-revised-penal-code/

Here are Sara's exact words:

"Don't worry, Ma'am, about my security, because I have already talked to someone. I told him, if they kill me, kill BBM [President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.], Liza Araneta [the First Lady], and Martin Romualdez [former House Speaker]. No joke, no joke. I have already given my instructions, Ma'am. If I die, I said, 'do not stop until you kill them.' And then he said yes."

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2260041/sara-dutertes-kill-threat-vs-marcos-absolute-says-witness

It appears from her words that a hitman has already been hired and is waiting for the exact time. She even reiterates twice that it is not a joke. It's a necessary and warranted pre-supposition that she has hired a hitman. Either way the prosecution says they will be presenting additional evidence regarding the existence of this alleged hitman. 

https://www.manilatimes.net/2026/07/09/news/witness-on-assassin-to-testify-at-impeachment-trial-prosecutors-say/2381093

THE prosecution has confirmed to the Senate impeachment court that it will present a witness on the supposed hitman allegedly hired by Vice President Sara Duterte to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

It's not over and yet the defense has already leaped to the conclusion that no proof for the existence of a hitman has been given when that was NOT the point of John Mark Calilung's testimony. With a shoddy defense like this things are not looking up for Sara Duterte.