September 8, 2026

Atty. Lorna Patajo-Kapunan said the prosecution was not then seeking a subpoena for the respondent, but reserved a possible request to present the respondent after all four articles and a possible amicus curiae on impeachment and public accountability.

Rep. Jose Manuel "Chel" I. Diokno said the 104 requests for admission concerned the genuineness of bank records and whether specified accounts belonged to the respondent alone or jointly with others. He said the procedure could save the court the presentation of at least 15 witnesses, while leaving the response period to the court's discretion.

Atty. Sheila Sison said the defense would submit a written comment if prosecutors formally sought a subpoena for the respondent and argued that compelling the respondent to testify for the prosecution would conflict with constitutional protection against testimonial compulsion.

Atty. Michael Wesley Poa requested at least 15 days under Rule 26, Section 2, and reserved the defense's comments and response on the prosecution's use of the admissions procedure.

The chair directed that the respondent's 15-day period to comment on the 104 requests for admission is non-extendable and that trial will continue during the period.

Treating Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo's proposal as an appeal or reconsideration, the chair identified the existing ruling as a hard 16: two-thirds of the Senate's 24 members. The court set a tentative September 16 amici-curiae hearing and September 23 party oral arguments before an Impeachment Court vote.

The court set exhibit marking for the following day and Thursday, then set trial to resume September 14 at 10 a.m. with the prosecution's first witness on the article concerning ill-gotten wealth.

Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo asked the body to decide how the constitutional reference to "all members" applies to final voting when senators are unavailable, and raised concern that unavailability could produce an acquittal by default.

Senator-Judge Paolo Benigno "Bam" Aquino said the threshold dispute concerned constitutional interpretation, not guilt or innocence, and cautioned against assuming either party's position on the question.

Senator-Judge Pia Cayetano challenged the characterization that the Senate had consistently relied on Avelino v. Cuenco for quorum. She questioned whether the Impeachment Court could reopen the chair's constitutional interpretation, which she said had stated that the Senate has 24 members and two-thirds is 16, and asked that amici include experts with divergent views.

Senator-Judge Robinhood "Robin" Padilla urged adherence to the Constitution and said constitutional change should follow the prescribed amendment process.

Senator-Judge Joel Villanueva supported time to study the question and asked how the court would vote on the appeal, distinguishing a majority vote on the appeal from the Constitution's two-thirds requirement for conviction.

Senator-Judge Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan moved to authorize the chair to select amici after consultation with both parties and senator-judges. On the detained senators' participation, he said any Senate position would have to proceed through judicial process and seek Sandiganbayan approval.

No witness testified during this sitting. Atty. Lorna Patajo-Kapunan said the prosecution would forego the 15 remaining Article 1 witnesses after presenting 10 in court and stipulating to two others.

Article 1 remained open. The chair directed both parties not to rest until the court decides whether to call additional Article 1 witnesses; if it calls witnesses, each side may cross-examine and present rebuttal or surrebuttal evidence concerning them.

The prosecution's 104 requests for admission sought comments on bank records and account ownership. The chair gave the respondent 15 days to file a comment.

The sitting opened with the prosecution's announcement that it would forgo its remaining Article 1 witnesses after its earlier presentation of 10 live witnesses and two stipulated witnesses.

After the chair kept Article 1 open and set the admissions-response period, the court took up the threshold appeal process and the schedule for amici and party arguments.

The chair adjourned after setting exhibit marking and the September 14 return to trial.

The prosecution's possible request to call the respondent remained reserved; no subpoena request was before the court in this sitting.

The threshold appeal had not been decided. Amici candidates had not yet been contacted, and the September 16 and 23 dates remained tentative and subject to availability.

The chair said the question of detained senators' participation had been referred to the Senate as a legislative body, rather than the Impeachment Court.

Sison said any defense participation in proceedings on Tulfo's motion would be out of caution and without prejudice to remedies the respondent may pursue.