2026 ImpeachmentTracker tracks claims made in the impeachment trial and the evidence cited for them. Status labels describe the state of evidence in the proceeding — never guilt, innocence, or a predicted verdict. This is an independent, solo-developer civic project; corrections are welcome. Read our methodology & disclaimers.

2026 ImpeachmentTracker
All sessions
Published recap

Impeachment Trial - Day 8

On Day 8, National Bureau of Investigation Director Matibag testified about a Special Task Force examining alleged threats to President Marcos, detailing the NBI Cybercrime Division's grave-threat and inciting-to-sedition charges against Vice President Sara Duterte, now pending at the Department of Justice. The presiding officer allowed the task-force testimony over a defense objection that it exceeded the articles of impeachment while granting the defense continuing objections, sustained an objection to a question deemed to call for a legal conclusion, and ordered the prosecution to furnish the defense copies of Administrative Order No. 11 and the Lascañas affidavit. Cross-examination of the witness by respondent's counsel is scheduled to continue the following day.

Last updated:

ShareFacebookX
Transcript status: Machine-cleanedGo to the transcript in SenateHearingTranscripts

Session record

Claims introduced or updated

  • No new standing claim cards were added this session; existing cards were updated with this session's developments.
  • "NBI's investigation of VP's alleged threat statements" was updated: the witness testified that the Vice President had been charged by the NBI Cybercrime Division with grave threat and inciting to sedition in a case now pending at the DOJ, and that she is the subject of a continuing NBI investigation into an alleged plan to kill the President, the First Lady, and the former Speaker.
  • "The Article IV grave-threats charge" was updated: the witness testified that the Vice President's own statement constituted a public confession of contracting a killing, characterized it as a plan rather than a threat, and identified video-exhibit timestamps for statements attributed to her.
  • "Basis of NBI's inciting to sedition case" was updated: the witness testified that the task force compared the Vice President's remarks with Mayor Sebastian Duterte's April 12, 2026 rally statements, weighed whether a conspiracy existed, and regards the threat as serious, active, and continuing.
  • "Ruling limits witness opinions on legal elements" was updated: presiding officer Senator Francisco "Chiz" Escudero sustained an objection to a prosecution question on what the Vice President allegedly violated, ruling it called for a conclusion of law.
  • "Defense challenges integrity of NBI complaint documents" was updated: senator-judges questioned the authentication of Administrative Order No. 11 under Rule 132, and the presiding officer ordered it furnished to the defense.
  • "The defense's bid to dismiss the case" was updated: defense counsel objected that the witness's testimony covered topics beyond the articles of impeachment, asserting a violation of the respondent's right to be promptly and fully apprised of the charges.

Evidence & exhibits

  • The prosecution played a marked and spliced video exhibit, with the witness identifying timestamps where the Vice President said "I want to cut off his head" (135.57–136.10) and "I imagine myself cutting his head" (136.52–137.50, corrected to 136.58).
  • The presiding officer ordered the prosecution to furnish the defense a copy of Administrative Order No. 11, signed by Director Matibag and dated April 16, 2026.
  • Senator-Judge Vicente "Tito" Sotto III ordered the prosecution to furnish the defense a copy of Mr. Lascañas's affidavit, described by the defense as an unsigned and unnotarized 100-page document.
  • The witness testified that a video of Mayor Sebastian Duterte dated April 12, 2026 was authenticated and preserved as material evidence, supported by an Affidavit of Authentication executed by Agent Edgar Apolonio.
  • Defense counsel noted that three documents dated June 24, July 10, and July 13, along with a letter from FBI Director Kash Patel, were introduced by the prosecution and now form part of the records of the case.
  • The impeachment court received requests for subpoena ad testificandum for Commission on Audit personnel Marivic Pareja, Roderick C. Wamil, and Xylene Mae del Campo.

Court rulings

  • The presiding officer ruled that testimony on the NBI Special Task Force would be allowed over a defense objection that the task force was not cited in the articles of impeachment or the complaint, and permitted the defense continuing objections without prejudice.
  • Presiding officer Senator Francisco "Chiz" Escudero sustained an objection to the prosecution's question on what the Vice President allegedly violated, ruling that it called for a conclusion of law and that the investigation was ongoing.
  • The presiding officer directed the prosecution to furnish the defense a copy of Administrative Order No. 11, signed by Director Matibag and dated April 16, 2026.
  • Senator-Judge Vicente "Tito" Sotto III granted the defense's motion for a continuance to review the Lascañas affidavit — noting it was the first such request by any counsel — and ordered the prosecution to furnish the defense a copy of the affidavit.
  • The presiding officer denied the defense's motion to strike the witness's answer from the record, leaving the testimony for the Senator-Judges to appreciate as to its weight.
  • The presiding officer ruled that the defense's questions about the witness's wife were admissible as testing the witness's freedom from bias.
  • The presiding officer clarified for the record that the witness was not yet NBI Director during the November 2025 investigation and may testify only to the fact that investigations were conducted, not to the truth of their findings.
  • The presiding officer directed that statements made by Senator-Judges Alan Peter Cayetano and Pia Cayetano on July 15 concerning the witness and the video be referred to the Senate Rules Committee rather than taken up in the impeachment court.
  • The presiding officer recalled the subpoenas ad testificandum and duces tecum issued to Ms. Violeta Constantino and Ms. Nanita Camposano, and stated the Chair would act on the Commission on Audit subpoena requests at the proper time.

Open questions

  • How will the continued cross-examination of Director Matibag by respondent's counsel, scheduled for the following day, proceed?
  • Will the impeachment court grant the pending requests for subpoena ad testificandum for the three Commission on Audit personnel?
  • How will the disputes over the authentication of Administrative Order No. 11 and the Lascañas affidavit under Rule 132 be resolved?
  • Will the Senate Rules Committee take up the July 15 statements the presiding officer referred to it?

Claims updated in this session