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.

The court elected Escudero as presiding officer by a 12–8 vote. The election did not erase the constitutional dispute: Alan Peter Cayetano's continuing objection was noted for the record.

Escudero stated that conviction required at least 16 affirmative votes, without prejudice to judicial relief; that the prosecution bore a burden that would not shift; that the respondent was presumed innocent; and that acquittal or conviction required clear charges supported by sufficiently clear and convincing evidence.

The chair denied the prosecution's request to read all four articles and enter a separate plea for each. He held that the articles had already been deemed read, the respondent had filed an answer and appeared through counsel, and each article would be read when put to a final vote.

The court adopted five days' disclosure for witnesses not identified in the pre-trial order or briefs, generally limited witness examination to one lawyer per side subject to exceptions, and ordered the BIR box closed, sealed, and returned because it was not yet lawfully in the court's custody or offered in evidence.

For NBI Regional Director Jeremy C. Lotoc and Senior Agent John Mark Calilung, the clerk read a testimonial-subpoena request and the prosecutor expressly corrected its scope to ad testificandum only. The chair's oral order nevertheless said ad testificandum and duces tecum, creating a transcript-level scope discrepancy; the defense reserved objections until testimony was presented.

The court did not decide whether to issue the broader bank and AMLC subpoenas. It required service on the opposing party, gave both sides five days for written positions, and promised separately scheduled oral argument before a ruling.

For public access, the court distinguished filings from evidence: pleadings, motions, memoranda, and approved journals would be posted, while documentary material would require formal offer and admission before publication. A subpoena motion could be public without making the requested records public.

Alan Peter Cayetano argued that the Constitution required the Senate President to preside, objected to electing another presiding officer, and preserved a continuing objection after Escudero's election.

Panfilo Lacson moved to elect Francis 'Chiz' Escudero as presiding officer. Alan Peter Cayetano objected, and the court elected Escudero by a 12-8 vote.

Pia Cayetano, Robin Padilla, Imee Marcos, and Loren Legarda placed constitutional objections and interpretations on the record about who should preside and how the framers' intent should be understood; the exchanges did not resolve the preserved constitutional objection.

Alan Peter Cayetano proposed that the court consider communicating with the Sandiganbayan about the in-person attendance of Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta. Robin Padilla clarified that he was asking at least that they be allowed to attend as observers; the chair left the matter for consultation or caucus.

Imee Marcos asked how senator-judges could prepare when marked affidavits and other witness materials were not readily available to them.

Bam Aquino pressed for prompt public access to evidence presented in court, while Alan Peter Cayetano cautioned that public filings, admitted evidence, and material whose disclosure may be prohibited required different treatment.

Erwin Tulfo asked whether Anti-Money Laundering Council evidence would require executive session. Risa Hontiveros argued for transparency and against treating executive session as the default in an impeachment trial.

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.