Heated Subpoena Debates and Witness Cuts Mark Critical Week in Duterte Impeachment Trial

MANILA — The Senate impeachment court, sitting as the final arbiter in the trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, adjourned on Wednesday after a tumultuous three days of hearings. The sessions, which ran from 13 July to 15 July 2026, saw dramatic shifts in prosecution tactics, intense cross-examinations regarding alleged assassination plots, and a fierce constitutional battle over the disclosure of the Vice President's bank and tax records.

Day 4 (Monday, 13 July 2026): Clash Over Cyber-Threats and Typographical Inconsistencies

The trial's second week opened with the prosecution calling its second major witness under Article IV (Grave Threats), National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc, who previously headed the NBI Cybercrime Division. Lotoc testified that the bureau found a clear, actionable basis to investigate the Vice President's online press conference on 23 November 2024, during which she claimed she had spoken to an assassin to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the First Lady, and the former House Speaker if a plot against her succeeded.

Lotoc defended the NBI's actions against defence claims of freedom of speech:

"Freedom of speech protects lawful expression, but it does not protect utterances that satisfies the elements of a criminal offense like this one... When the second highest official of the land openly and publicly uttered that she had already contracted a person to kill the highest official of the land, the first lady, and the former speaker and that she instructed a person to be relentless in killing them, we fail to see any amount of freedom of speech in those."

During cross-examination, defence counsel Mark Vinluan aggressively targetted typographical errors and date anomalies in the NBI's filings, such as a manually altered receipt stamp on a Department of Justice document. Vinluan challenged Lotoc directly on an unsigned witness interview transcript:

"Wasn't this a failure to observe SOP on your part? We are talking here about filing a case against the Vice President of the Philippines, who is the second highest official of the land, and you used an unsigned document as part of your exhibits."

Senator-judges also interjected during the day. Pressing the defence's narrative that no hitman was actually hired, Senator-Judge Bam Aquino asked:

"If lawyers say there's no hitman, was Sara Duterte lying?"

The day closed with the defence announcing that they would call witnesses to prove the existence of "Operation Romanov," an alleged assassination plot against the Vice President and her family.

Day 5 (Tuesday, 14 July 2026): Capability Debates and the Dropping of Key Witnesses

On the fifth day of the trial, the defence continued grilling Lotoc over his "personal knowledge" of the alleged hitman. Vinluan pushed the witness to admit that the NBI's conclusions rested entirely on the Vice President's spoken words rather than physical proof of an active assassin.

Vinluan pressed:

"In the same way, you also don't have personal knowledge that Vice President Sara contracted an assassin."

Lotoc responded:

"We do believe that the Vice President had contracted [someone], but I don't have personal knowledge, if that is the personal knowledge you want to know about. But we do believe this based on the evidence that we've gathered and based on our investigation."

The cross-examination became so combative that Impeachment Court Presiding Officer Francis "Chiz" Escudero intervened, telling the opposing counsels that "this is not a college debate." Escudero noted that the witness:

"...is incompetent to testify as to the truth of the matter stated by the vice president. He can only testify as to the fact that those statements were made... given that he only investigated and was not there."

Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian questioned the basis for the NBI's conclusion that the Vice President possessed the capability to execute such a threat. Lotoc argued that her office and family background—citing her father's (former President Rodrigo Duterte) ongoing case before the International Criminal Court (ICC)—contributed to this capability:

"Definitely... For one, she is the Vice President of the Republic of the Philippines... We know the background… her father was a former president… So we look into that, that indeed being in that situation, she has the capability."

The day concluded with a surprise move from the prosecution. Private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan announced that they were dropping OVP Chief of Staff Zuleika Lopez and Legislative Security Bureau head Capt. Belinda Bello from the Article IV witness list:

"It is the wisdom of the public prosecutors, as expressed through this representation, that we find it totally unnecessary, redundant and a surplusage to still present Atty. Zuleika Lopez and, as well, Capt. Belinda Bello."

Day 6 (Wednesday, 15 July 2026): Intimidation Row and Showdown Over Bank Secrecy

Day 6 erupted in early drama before transitioning into oral arguments over the prosecution's request to subpoena the bank, tax, and AMLC records of the Vice President and her husband, Manases Carpio, under Article II (Unexplained Wealth).

Prior to the arguments, proceedings were derailed when Senator-Judges Pia and Alan Peter Cayetano, along with Senator-Judge Robin Padilla, raised grave concerns over NBI Director Melvin Matibag. The day prior, Matibag publicly announced that the NBI would probe a P10-billion unliquidated funding anomaly regarding the 2019 Southeast Asian (SEA) Games sports complex in New Clark City, while also reopening an investigation into the controversial P50-million cauldron.

The Cayetanos were heavily impacted by the announcement because Alan Peter Cayetano served as the chairperson of the Philippine SEA Games Organizing Committee (Phisgoc). The siblings argued the sudden move was a targeted attempt to pressure them ahead of Matibag's scheduled appearance on the witness stand.

Raising a manifestation to play the video of Matibag's press statement before the court, Senator-Judge Pia Cayetano directly accused the NBI chief of intimidation:

"What's the purpose? Is he trying to intimidate us not to ask him tough questions when he is our resource person next week? I do not know... What was the intention here? To distract the minority floor leader who is one of only two lawyers right now... So, there are only two of us, so you want to distract him. So, I'll just stand here. He can't study anymore. Is that the intention? Because it is clearly the intention. The fact that he has to stand up, the fact that I have to stand up, the fact that Senator Robin has to stand up..."

Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano called the probe a "misfire" and a "hearsay" accusation, arguing that Phisgoc did not implement the infrastructure project:

"Go ahead and investigate... But we have to make sure that the integrity of the court is intact."

The court eventually pivoted to oral arguments regarding the subpoena request. House prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno argued that the Senate's power to demand these documents was absolute under the 1987 Constitution:

"Nothing and no one can handcuff this Court's power to try and decide this impeachment case... Since this Impeachment Court has the sole power to determine what constitutes an impeachable offense, no one – not the Supreme Court, much less the defense can impose limitations on that power."

Diokno, reading from an AMLC report, noted that Duterte’s financial transactions surged from P28.15 million in 2007 to annual flows exceeding P400 million between 2009 and 2013. He told the court:

"The public and the senator-judges need to see the true colours and picture of the Vice President as a public servant... If she amassed staggering amounts of unexplained wealth while she was a vice mayor and mayor, doesn't that say a lot about her unfitness to serve as a vice president?"

Defence counsel Michael Poa pushed back strongly, accusing the prosecution of engaging in an overreaching search:

"When a subpoena becomes oppressive, when it is unreasonable, and when it is merely issued for the very purpose that there is a hope that somewhere, somehow, something incriminating will come out, it ceases to be an instrument of justice. It becomes a weapon of a fishing expedition."

Recognising the gravity of the legal debate, Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano remarked:

"I can tell you honestly right now, I don't know what to vote for, what my vote will be. But I do know that these are two important issues [bank deposits and corporate accounts]."

Presiding Officer Escudero commended both sides before sending the court into a recess for a closed-door caucus:

"I commend both sides for a calm, temperate, gentlemanly, and respectful discourse and debate regarding this issue, which we can consider controversial."

Post-Session Statements

Following the adjournment of Day 5, prosecution counsel Lorna Kapunan addressed reporters to deny that dropping Zuleika Lopez was a strategic retreat:

"There was no backdoor channeling, and there was no retreat... We don't bluff. This is not a bluffing game... The nature of the cross-examination, the depth of the questions of the senator-judges, and the clarity of the re-direct examination cemented our evaluation that it [Lopez's testimony] was no longer necessary."

Following Day 6, Kapunan turned her attention to the senator-judges, who had ruled that counsels should not explain their reasons for withdrawing witnesses inside the court to preserve impartiality. Kapunan called for a balance of standards to be applied to the senator-judges themselves:

“My personal view here—and what I say, please do not blame management, please do not blame the public prosecutors—but I would like to say that when we talk about balance and when we talk about impartiality, I guess that same standard should apply not only to the prosecutors, not only to the defense, but to the senator-judges.”

Meanwhile, Presiding Officer Escudero announced that the senator-judges would release their formal ruling on the subpoena requests on Monday, 20 July 2026.

Prosecution spokesperson Jay Tolosa released a statement explaining their eagerness to secure the records early:

"Obtaining the documents early in the proceedings would help avoid delays when Article II is eventually tackled... After each time we present a witness and evidence, we always conduct an assessment to see what important matters were covered... so we will make adjustments."