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 issued the ruling reflected in this hearing segment.

Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III asked whether the respondent's 15 days to comment on the 104 requests for admission would prevent the court from holding hearings or continuing the trial. The Chair said the period was only for the respondent's comments and would not suspend the trial: the prosecution could continue presenting witnesses and conduct direct examination if the respondent was not yet ready to cross-examine while reviewing the admissions and supporting records. Sotto confirmed that the trial would continue. The exchange established that the admissions-response period would not halt the prosecution's presentation.

Sen. Panfilo "Ping" Lacson asked whether the 15-day period for the respondents to comment on the requests for admission could be extended. The Presiding Officer answered that it could not: the rules made the period non-extendable. Respondent's counsel confirmed the point, fixing the deadline for the requested comments.

Sen. Erwin Tulfo urged the Senate to resolve before a final impeachment vote which members could validly participate, citing an accelerated trial calendar and four colleagues beyond the Senate's control: one abroad on medical leave, one in hiding and two in custody. He asked whether absent senators could vote and warned that treating the 24-seat base as fixed when enough members could not participate could produce an acquittal by default, making impeachment impossible rather than merely difficult. Tulfo later clarified that he was not asking to lower the constitutional threshold: his position was that the voting base remained all 24 senators regardless of how many were available, while the body still had to determine how absent members' votes would be treated. He asked the Court to decide the issue. On detained members, Tulfo said the Sandiganbayan controlled their attendance, but the Senate could ask it to let them attend.

Sen. Pia S. Cayetano said the threshold question needed fuller discussion with the minority floor leader present and rejected the claim that Avellino v. Cuenco reflected a settled Senate position. She said 12 senators had relied on the case to find a quorum but that the minority did not agree. When the proposed appeal of the July 6 threshold ruling was raised, Cayetano questioned whether the Senate could reopen it at all: she recalled the Chair's position that two-thirds of the 24-member Senate meant 16 votes and that a constitutional challenge belonged before the Supreme Court. She also urged a balanced group of amici if the matter proceeded. Cayetano later urged the Senate to ask the Sandiganbayan to allow its detained members to participate and vote, arguing that their participation would avoid changing the rules or recalculating the threshold.

Sen. Robinhood "Robin" Padilla said the threshold discussion required the senator-judges to remember their oath to uphold the Constitution. He described the Constitution as a product of people power meant to protect Filipinos' rights and voices, and said it could not be altered or worked around: any change had to follow the constitutional-amendment process. Padilla said he would defend the Constitution throughout his life. The manifestation framed the threshold debate as a question of constitutional fidelity.

Sen. Paolo Benigno "Bam" Aquino said the threshold question was a constitutional-interpretation issue, not a question of the respondent's guilt or innocence. He cautioned against assuming the prosecution sought a lower threshold while the defense sought to maintain it, and asked whether the parties would submit their positions before oral argument. The Presiding Officer said the parties would advocate their respective positions within the law and that hearing both sides would aid the senator-judges. Aquino said he would not press them to announce their positions then, but reiterated that the threshold question did not itself concern guilt or innocence.

Sen. Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan said amici curiae are ordinarily eminent legal and constitutional experts, including retired chief justices and Supreme Court justices. He moved to authorize the Presiding Officer, after consultation with the prosecution, defense and senator-judges, to select the amici, provided that those consultations occurred. The motion sought a balanced expert process for the threshold issue.

Sen. Joel Villanueva supported Sen. Francis Pangilinan's motion to give senator-judges time to study the threshold issue. He read Article XI, section 3(6) into the record, stressing that conviction requires the concurrence of two-thirds of all Senate members. Villanueva said the earlier 16-vote position had seemed non-debatable to him, but that the appeal warranted study. He agreed that incarcerated colleagues remained Senate members and said he had supported allowing them to monitor proceedings so they could eventually carry out their constitutional duty. Villanueva asked whether the body would decide the threshold matter by a simple majority after the presentations, emphasizing that the two-thirds requirement differed from an ordinary vote. The manifestation sought clarity on how the threshold question and senators' participation would be resolved.

Sen. Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan placed on record that Sen. Rodante Marcoleta had formally told the Senate President and Presiding Officer that he wanted to participate, saying that fact should be considered in resolving whether absent colleagues could vote. In a later manifestation, Pangilinan said that if the Senate took the position that detained members should participate, it would have to seek the Sandiganbayan's approval through the ordinary judicial process. He said that course respected the separation of powers and each branch's authority in its own jurisdiction.

Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo asked whether the impeachment court could allow two senators in Sandiganbayan custody to attend the hearings. The Chair said their request had been referred to the Senate as a legislative body, not the impeachment court, and repeated that the legislative Senate had to decide it when Tulfo pressed whether the court could invite them. Tulfo proposed that the detained senators at least be allowed to monitor the proceedings if they were to vote. He said they could not vote intelligently without hearing the prosecution and defense, and that television was not allowed in their cells. The exchange put attendance or meaningful access to the trial at the center of their ability to participate in a final vote.

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.