Why this status: The claim has been made, but the evidence currently on the public record is not yet sufficient to assess it either way.
What does the record show about the defense's challenge to the integrity of the NBI and DOJ documents underlying the articles of impeachment?
Defense challenges integrity of NBI complaint documents
Defense counsel asserted that the documents being presented, which were subpoenaed from the NBI and submitted by the NBI to the House Committee on Justice as the basis for filing the articles of impeachment, may have been altered, noting that the Investigation Data Form bears docket number XVI-INV-25C-0008 while the February 5, 2025 certification and the February 14, 2025 DOJ certification bear docket number XVI EVAL-INV-25A-0049; Senator-Judge Cayetano asserted that the February 3 document could not logically have been an attachment to the January 30 affidavit because it post-dated the original submission. The NBI witness testified that he has no personal knowledge of the docket numbers, that the DOJ was responsible for assigning them, and that the first affidavit had attachments the prosecutor did not notice. The Presiding Officer ruled that there was no basis for the assertion that the documents were altered and sustained an objection to questioning the witness about DOJ docket numbers, holding the witness not competent to answer about documents belonging to the DOJ.
Claimed by Sheila Sison — Litigator, Fortun Narvasa & Salazar; lead trial counsel (Defense Counsel)
Last updated:
Positions
Defense position
DefenseDefense counsel asserted that the documents being presented, which were subpoenaed from the NBI and submitted by the NBI to the House Committee on Justice as the basis for filing the articles of impeachment, may have been altered, noting that the Investigation Data Form bears docket number XVI-INV-25C-0008 while the February 5, 2025 certification and the February 14, 2025 DOJ certification bear docket number XVI EVAL-INV-25A-0049; Senator-Judge Cayetano asserted that the February 3 document could not logically have been an attachment to the January 30 affidavit because it post-dated the original submission. The NBI witness testified that he has no personal knowledge of the docket numbers, that the DOJ was responsible for assigning them, and that the first affidavit had attachments the prosecutor did not notice. The Presiding Officer ruled that there was no basis for the assertion that the documents were altered and sustained an objection to questioning the witness about DOJ docket numbers, holding the witness not competent to answer about documents belonging to the DOJ.
Source-linked
“Counsel asserted that the documents being presented were subpoenaed from the NBI and submitted by the NBI to the House Committee on Justice as the basis for filing the articles of impeachment.”
Evidence
Developments
- Impeachment Trial - Day 8Context
The Presiding Officer directed the prosecution to furnish the defense with a copy of AO No. 11, signed by Director Matibag and dated April 16, 2026, after defense counsel requested it alongside the Las Cañas document. Senator-judges questioned the document's authentication under Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, one noting it had not been acknowledged before a notary public and another asserting the prosecution had not authenticated the private document under any of the three recognized methods, as the witness did not see it executed and the defense stated there was no original signature. A senator-judge also cited Rule 132 on impeaching a witness by contradictory evidence, bad general reputation for truth, or prior inconsistent statements.
Evidence tiers, explained
The official record of the proceeding itself: session video (VODs) and transcripts, filed pleadings, court orders and rulings, admitted exhibits.
An official or primary document from outside the proceeding: an agency report (e.g. a COA audit), an official order or gazette entry, an authenticated original statement.
Reporting that describes primary material rather than being it — one step removed from the record, whoever the publisher is.
Commentary, analysis, or opinion: an editorial, column, press release, social-media post, or other advocacy or self-published take.
A publicly circulating claim whose provenance cannot be traced to any of the tiers above; never used to set a claim's status.