July 6, 2026

With 21 senator-judges present, Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian declared a quorum and opened the sitting under the amended impeachment rules.

Alan Peter Cayetano objected that the Constitution required the Senate President to preside. After competing views from senator-judges, Panfilo Lacson moved to elect Escudero; the official vote was 12 in favor and 8 against, and Escudero assumed the chair.

Escudero announced the court's initial voting and proof framework. Cayetano later agreed with the 16-vote threshold but registered a continuing objection to the presiding-officer arrangement and asked to submit it in writing.

After the parties entered appearances, the court heard opening statements from lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro and defense counsel Sheila Sison, then moved to witness, subpoena, document-handling, and public-access matters.

The court adjourned before the first witness was called. It directed the clerk to issue subpoenas for two NBI agents expected the following day and set resumption for July 7 at 2 p.m.

Senate President Gatchalian ruled that the impeachment-trial rules remained operative, directed that further rules issues be addressed by the Senate as a legislative body, and conducted the vote electing Escudero as Presiding Officer.

The Chair’s later directions governed access to marked records, availability of evidence, executive-session questions, subpoenas, and the other administrative requests on the record.

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano objected to electing a presiding officer, arguing that Article XI and the Constitutional Commission's records make the Senate President the presiding officer in impeachments other than one of the President. He said choosing another officer, or amending rules without proper notice and impeachment-court adoption, could undermine jurisdiction, due process, and the validity of a lengthy trial; he asked the Senate President to preside and rule on his point of order. He maintained that the impeachment court could address its own rules and that an internal rule could not alter the Constitution, then called for a vote and division of the House when he objected to deferring the issue.

Sen. Pia S. Cayetano argued from the Constitutional Commission debates that the Senate President should preside in impeachment trials other than one involving the President, and urged colleagues to consider those debates rather than divide the question along majority-minority lines. She said that, if a special session were thought necessary to amend the rules, one could be called; her position was that the Court already sitting in impeachment should make the amendments there. Explaining her vote, she said the framers' intent must control, rejected reliance on expressio unius, and said the vote had disregarded that intent. Separately, she asked that resource persons and the prosecution and defense be allowed water, necessary food, bathroom breaks, and time to stand and stretch without seeking permission because hearings could run long. She also asked whether every House member on the prosecution panel was a lawyer; the lead prosecutor said all 11 House prosecutors were members of the legal profession.

Sen. Robin Padilla said the Constitutional Commission’s framers and the text attributed to Commissioner Davide supported the Senate President’s presiding in impeachment cases other than the President’s. He invoked the Estrada trial and a later impeachment proceeding as historical practice, then asked majority colleagues why they had pressed for Escudero as Presiding Officer instead of making him Senate President.

Sen. Imee Marcos warned against beginning the trial on an erroneous constitutional footing. She argued that Article XI makes the Chief Justice the sole exception and otherwise leaves the Senate President to preside, said the Constitutional Commission debates reinforced that reading, and challenged the June 3 quorum and rule amendments while a Supreme Court petition remained pending. In a later inquiry, Marcos asked whether the pretrial document-marking procedure remained in place and whether senator-judges had received all marked records. She said the investigation affidavit for the first NBI witnesses was missing from misannexed papers and that she needed the documents to prepare. The response was that the records had not yet been formally offered or authenticated and that copies could be sought once a witness identified the material.

Sen. Bam Aquino supported public access to the impeachment record and asked how soon the Clerk of Court would make the evidence available. He said a delay of months would defeat the purpose and sought a commitment on publication. The Chair said the Clerk would endeavor to upload presented evidence in real time at the soonest possible time, except for journals awaiting Court approval.

Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III said the Constitutional Commission record supplied by legal staff treated the Constitution as silent on who presides over a Senate impeachment while expressly assigning the Chief Justice to a President's trial. Invoking expressio unius est exclusio alterius, he urged that reading of the constitutional text and pressed the court to decide the issue so it could move from rules to the trial the public expected.

Sen. Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan disputed the claim that the Senate President must preside. He said the Constitution names the Chief Justice only for a President's trial and otherwise permits Congress to make rules, pointing to the Senate's June 3 rule amendments and June 17 ratification. He added that Cayetano's objection was already before the Supreme Court without a temporary restraining order or status quo ante order, and said the impeachment court should proceed while any remaining challenge was taken up by the Senate as a legislative body or by the Court.

Sen. Risa Hontiveros supported the direction against executive sessions. She said executive sessions belong to Congress's ordinary legislative functions and are not contemplated in impeachment trials, endorsing transparency as this court's general rule and default.

Sen. Panfilo Lacson moved under Rule 2 of the impeachment-trial rules to elect Francis Joseph Guevara Escudero as presiding officer of the Impeachment Court.

Sen. Joel Villanueva asked where the BIR box was being held and when it would be returned to the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Escudero said the Clerk of Court held it in the Office of the Secretary General and that it would be returned sealed the following morning.

Sen. Erwin Tulfo asked whether Anti-Money Laundering Council records should be discussed publicly or in executive session because of bank-secrecy concerns. Escudero said the immediate question was only whether to subpoena the records, not their contents; executive-session discussion would prevent their public use absent unanimous consent, while the Court would decide whether the records could be obtained and made public after hearing the parties.

Sen. Loren Legarda argued that constitutional silence on the presiding officer should be read through the framers' intent, warning that departure from the traditional arrangement could put the impeachment trial's validity and legitimacy in doubt. She said her position did not yield the pending Supreme Court challenge to the June 3 Senate proceedings and Resolution No. 430 and was without prejudice to the Court's final determination.

Sen. Raffy Tulfo supported allowing Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta to monitor the proceedings through a television feed, aligning himself with Alan Peter Cayetano's proposal. The Chair said the point was well taken.

Luistro framed the four articles as chapters of one accountability case and promised official records, financial documents, government reports, recorded video, sworn statements, and institutional findings rather than rumor or political narrative.

On Article 1, the prosecution said it would show that more than P612 million in OVP and DepEd confidential funds was disbursed and liquidated through questionable supporting documents and acknowledgment receipts bearing names it said government records could not verify. These were opening allegations, not findings.

On Article 2, the prosecution previewed financial transactions involving billions of pesos associated with the Vice President and her husband and asked whether the wealth and transactions had a lawful, complete explanation. On Article 3, it alleged bribery, graft, and corruption through cash payments and monetary gifts to officials under the respondent's supervision.

On Article 4, the prosecution said it would rely substantially on the respondent's recorded public statements to argue culpable constitutional violation, high crimes, and betrayal of public trust through conduct threatening constitutional order. It chose to present Article 4 first, followed by Articles 1, 3, and 2.

Answering the defense's objection to pre-term bank and AMLC records, the prosecution argued that earlier-acquired wealth could remain relevant to a current-term charge because its benefit continued and integrity was a continuing requirement for office.

Sison framed the case as an attempt to remove a Vice President elected by more than 32 million voters. She accepted accountability as a legitimate public demand but argued that prosecutors and House members were equally bound by public-trust standards and constitutional limits.

The defense characterized the House Justice Committee's proceedings as an unconstitutional “mini-trial” and fishing expedition that curated material beyond the impeachment complaints before the Senate trial.

On confidential funds, the defense said the release followed documented DBM and Office of the President approvals, that the COA decision was not final and remained subject to further remedies, and that the cited COA actions did not themselves find misuse. These were defense representations about documents not admitted that day.

Across the articles, the defense argued that the prosecution's material remained unproved until tested for admissibility, credibility, relevance, materiality, and competence; it emphasized that the burden never shifts and the respondent is presumed innocent.

The defense objected that the bank and AMLC requests reached back before the vice-presidential term, invaded private records without article-specific relevance, and amounted to another fishing expedition. It reserved fuller objections for its written response and oral argument.

No witness was sworn or examined during the sitting. The chair stated that documentary evidence had not yet been formally offered, turned over to the court, identified and authenticated by a witness, or admitted.

The prosecution sought NBI testimony from Jeremy C. Lotoc and John Mark Calilung for Article 4 and for identification and authentication of other material. The record supports expected attendance the next day, not completed service or testimony on July 6.

The clerk read requests for bank and AMLC records concerning Sara Duterte and Manases Carpio over periods extending from 2006 or 2007 through 2025. The court had not issued those subpoenas and instead set briefing and future oral argument before a ruling.

The BIR box remained sealed and was ordered returned to the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The chair said it was not yet in the court's lawful custody and had not been marked or offered in evidence.

Luistro described the prosecution's promised proof this way: “Evidence. Hindi chismis. Hindi hakahaka. Hindi propaganda at lalong hindi SOCMED narrative.”

Sison stated the defense's central evidentiary position: “The burden of proof never shifts.”

Escudero summarized the session's evidence status: “documentary evidence as of yet has not been formally offered and therefore has not been turned over to the court.”

The constitutional objection to Escudero serving as presiding officer remained preserved as Alan Peter Cayetano's continuing objection despite the 12–8 election.

The merits of all four articles remained untested because no witness had testified and no documentary evidence had been formally offered or admitted.

The bank and AMLC subpoena requests remained pending, including disputes over temporal scope, relevance, privacy, legal access, and eventual public disclosure of any records obtained.

The transcript did not conclusively resolve whether the NBI-agent subpoenas required testimony only or testimony plus documents: the request and prosecutor's correction said ad testificandum, while the chair's oral order added duces tecum.

Requests concerning the in-person attendance of Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta, at least as observers, were left for later consultation or caucus.