July 22, 2026

On behalf of the Senate President, the Presiding Officer of the Impeachment Court, and the Senator-Judges.

Sergeant-at-Arms is directed to make a proclamation.

All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while the Impeachment Court is in session for the trial of Vice President Sarah Zimmermann Duterte.

The impeachment trial of Vice President Sarah Zimmermann Duterte is hereby called to order.

Please rise for a minute of silent prayer.

Amen. The Clerk of Court will now call the roll.

Roll call of members. Honorable Senator-Judge Aquino; Senator-Judge Cayetano, Alan; Senator-Judge Cayetano, Pia; Senator-Judge Dela Rosa; Senator-Judge Ejercito; Senator-Judge Estrada; Senator-Judge Go; Senator-Judge Hontiveros; Senator-Judge Lacson; Senator-Judge Lapid; Senator-Judge Legarda; Senator-Judge Marcoleta; Senator-Judge Marcos; Senator-Judge Padilla; Senator-Judge Pangilinan; Senator-Judge Sotto III; Senator-Judge Tulfo, Erwin; Senator-Judge Tulfo, Raffy; Senator-Judge Villanueva; Senator-Judge Villar, Camille; Senator-Judge Villar, Mark; Senator-Judge Zubiri; the Presiding Officer, Senator-Judge Escudero; Senate President Gatchalian.

17 senators present, the chair declares the presence of court. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials, the Chair now recognizes the duly elected Presiding Officer to preside over the proceedings of the Impeachment Court.

Thank you, Mr. Senate President. If there are no objections, we shall dispense with the reading of the Journal of July 21, 2026 of the Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court, and shall consider the same as approved.

The Clerk of Court will please call the case before the Impeachment Court.

Case No. 004-2026, in the matter of the Impeachment Trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. Appearances.

Good afternoon, Your Honors. Respectfully appearing for the prosecution. We are ready, Your Honor.

Thank you. Appearances for the respondent.

Good afternoon, Your Honors. Same appearance for the defense.

The status of the trial is that we will be proceeding, or continuing rather, with the cross-examination of the counsel-correspondent. Clerk of court is directed to kindly get the witness and have him situate himself before the witness stand for the cross of the counsel-correspondent. Good afternoon,

Director Matibag. You shall continue with your testimony.

Specifically, the cross-examination of counsel for respondent and shall be testifying under the same oath yesterday. Do you understand that, sir?

Yes, Your Honor.

Thank you, sir. Good afternoon. Counsel for respondent may proceed when you're ready, sir.

Your Honor, considering the interpolations yesterday by the senator judges, and to give time also for more interpolations today, if any, we'll just go over several cross-points, Your Honor.

You may proceed, sir.

And as instructed by the Chair yesterday, the interjections and interventions of Senator Judges shall be after the cross, redirect, and recross, if any. You may proceed, sir.

Good afternoon again, Director Matibag. Good afternoon,

sir.

Director Matibag, in relation to Article 4 of this Articles of Impeachment, you were likewise subpoenaed by the House Committee on Justice to attend its mini-trial, correct?

Yes, sir.

Was it a subpoena?

Objection, Your Honor. Asked and answered, Your Honor.

Asked and answered.

Was it a subpoena ad testificandum, or duces tecum, or both?

I recall that this is a subpena ducis tecum and ad testificandum.

And you appeared on various dates, but you appeared on April 29, 2026, correct?

April 29, yes, sir.

All right. Now, you issued Administrative Order No. 11 on April 16, 2026, correct?

Yes, sir.

So AO 11 was issued only 13 days prior to your appearance before the mini-trial.

So April 16, 29 minus—that's about it, 13 or 12 days.

All right. And this was one of the documents that you submitted by virtue—

Your Honor.

I have no question.

Yes, Your Honor, but I just want to enter a continuing objection to the use of ‘mini-trial.’ It was never a mini-trial. It is a clarificatory hearing.

Your Honor, just a short rejoinder. May I proceed, Counsel? Isn't it, with all due respect, isn't it Representative Luistro who termed such proceeding as mini-trial? We

just want to inquire of Representative Luistro.

May I respond, Your Honor?

The lead prosecutor may respond thereafter. We shall continue. Yes, what is your response, counsel? The

prosecution has been very consistent that what we did in the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives is never a mini-trial. It is a clarificatory hearing consistent to the House rules on impeachment and even consistent to the provisions of Article 11 of the Constitution.

The continuing objection of Council Lead Prosecutor is duly noted in regard to the line and words used by Council Correspondent. Council Correspondent may proceed.

All right.

So going back, this was one of the documents that you submitted by virtue of the Subpoena du Sisteko, correct? AO number 11.

Yes.

In fact, AO No. 11 was first mentioned in public during that April 29, 2026 hearing, correct?

In that hearing, yes. But I never—I cannot recall if it had been made public before.

All right. But you mentioned it in that hearing.

I think it was mentioned. Yes, sir.

Now, AO 11 pertains to the creation of a special task force. Is it not?

Yes, sir.

All right. And according to the whereas clause—and I will read it and quote—it says, ‘Threats

to the life of the President constitute a grave offense with far-reaching implications on national stability, public safety, and the continuity of government. Do you confirm this?

you confirm this? Sir,

may I request for a copy of the documents

Very well. May I ask my co-counsel, Your Honor, to provide Director Matibag with a comment?

Assisting counsel for respondent may approach. Likewise, assisting counsel for the prosecutor may approach the witness.

Yes, sir. All right. My question is this. Are threats to the life of the vice president constitute a grave offense with far-reaching implications on national stability, public safety, and the continuity of government?

Your Honor, objection, please. What

is the ground for the objection?

The question of the defense is speculative.

Overruled. Witness may answer.

The threat to the President and all other high government officials like the Senate President, the Chief Justice, the Speaker of the House, or any other officers is a threat to the national security and threat to public safety.

All right, very well. Now, did you create a special task force to investigate the threats to the life of VP Sara?

There was none, to my recollection.

So let us recall the interview. This is part of

an interview of Dempsey Reyes of the Philippine Daily Inquirer. This is part, Your Honor, of Annex G-9 of the Articles of Impeachment. And please direct your attention to paragraph 13 of the minutes of the meeting and allow me to read. Number 13, are you aware of the threats?

Your Honor, please, may we confront the witness with the document?

Very well.

Your Honor, we will provide the hard copy and we will display or flash on the screen a soft copy of such document.

counsel for both parties may approach the bench and confront the witness with a copy of the document that the counsel for the respondent is referring to. Kindly proceed, counsel. All

All right. It says, paragraph 13, or question and answer No. 13: ‘Are you aware of the threats?’ Answer: ‘May press con kasi earlier than that. Sabi niya, parang sabi niya lang, gusto raw siyang patayin daw, according to her new speaker.’ That was during a press conference the day before November 22. So my question is, can you confirm that this is part of the NBI's own records?

It reflected on the investigation report, so I

presume it is. All right. So this is information regarding the threats to the life of VP Sara, is it not?

Nakalagay po doon, may threat daw po. Tama po.

And when you became NBI director in February 2026, did you conduct a motu proprio investigation to help her?

I was informed by the investigating officers that it was considered the threat that was mentioned to the Vice President. In fact, personalities were subpoenaed, including the Vice President two times, in order to aid the National Bureau of Investigation in this investigation. However, to no avail, there was no attendance from the personalities that were invited.

All right.

So let me clarify. Under your leadership already, did the NBI subpoena VP Sara for this?

We never subpoenaed because we noticed that every time a proper subpoena was issued to the Vice President, she would never attend a subpoena.

And your basis for saying that is the subpoena connected to the first investigation, correct?

Not only that. In a lot of proceedings, including the proceeding in the impeachment at the House of Representatives, I noticed that she never attended.

So that was your motivation for not issuing a subpoena. Anyway, under your leadership—

Your Honor, please, may I move to strike from the record the word ‘motivation’? The witness never said ‘motivation.’

Let it remain in the record. Counsel may proceed.

All right. So under your leadership, did the NBI subpoena former Speaker Martin?

Wala pa po.

Wala. But do you intend to issue a subpoena against him?

Actually, when we're investigating the issue on the 18 Marines, if the 18 Marines were able to issue their statement properly, we intend to subpoena Speaker Martin Romualdez.

Okay. So under your leadership, did the NBI subpoena those who were present during that November 22 press conference?

There are some personalities that were subpoenaed. In fact, I noticed that you presented the subpoenas yesterday.

Yeah, but isn't it that those subpoenas were under the leadership of Director Santiago?

Well, as to the investigation at that time, it had already been the subject of a resolution pending before the Department of Justice.

So, in other words, insofar as the alleged threats to the President, there is an ongoing investigation. But in terms of the alleged threats against the Vice President, there's no ongoing investigation.

Because there is a big difference, Your Honor.

Okay. How about Princess Maui, for example, from the November 23 presscon? Was she subpoenaed under your leadership?

Ask and answered question, Your Honor.

This is the first time about Princess Maui, Your Honor.

Your Honor, it has been asked already during the cross.

No, the ground is correct. Asked and answered, meaning the witness already answered, no, he did not.

All right. But

you mentioned a while ago that there were two... Subpoenas issued against VP Sara, correct?

Yes, sir.

Based on the record, that was turned over to me.

Yeah, but those two subpoenas were issued by former Director NBI Santiago and not under your leadership. By

the National Bureau of Investigation, yes, under the leadership of Director Santiago.

But just to clarify, under your leadership, no subpoena?

Asked and answered, Your Honor.

Asked and answered. Move on, counsel.

All right, I'll move on. Now, you mentioned yesterday that for grave threats and inciting to sedition, these are still pending before the DOJ.

Asked and answered, Your Honor.

Asked and answered, counsel. Go on.

You likewise mentioned yesterday that you have an ongoing investigation. And my question is, is this for the alleged contracting for the assassination?

Yes, that is very clear. I was able to explain that yesterday.

Okay. And particularly, the ongoing investigation pertained to the leads that you have to the alleged person that VP Sara talked to?

Among others, Your Honor.

But no subpoena has been issued to such alleged person under your leadership?

Because we are under a case build-up status. It is an ongoing investigation, as mentioned yesterday, sir.

Okay. Now, let me just clarify. In a subpoena, the NBI must specifically identify the felony or crime for which you are issuing the subpoena. Is that not the case?

Yes, we provide what is the crime that we will investigate.

Okay, very well. So here, what will be the felony or crime that will be indicated in the subpoena?

But you have to remember, we also have the mandate to protect the Constitution, to protect the peace and order. And if it goes to national security and peace and order, we are also mandated to investigate.

Your Honor, with all due respect, Your Honor, the answer was not responsive.

My answer was very specific.

My question was very specific.

What will be the felony or crime that will be indicated in the subpoena?

Witness will please answer. The question was simple. What is the crime, if any, or penalty in relation to the document being asked by the counsel? We all know that there is no crime

committed when there is a plan to kill until it is executed. But what I'm saying, that's why I'm qualifying, is because one of the mandates of the National Bureau of Investigation is to protect the national security. And we are also mandated to issue a subpoena or an investigation to do so. So if in this case we cannot issue a subpoena, we can issue an invitation for those persons of interest.

So, you cannot issue a subpoena, but just an invitation. In other

words, this is not under the jurisdiction of the NBI, correct?

It is within the power of the NBI to protect the national interests and the national security. And as mentioned, there is a continuing threat to the president under Section G, Section 5 of the Republic Act 10867. It is one of the primary duties of the NBI to protect. The security of the president.

All right. Yesterday you also mentioned betrayal of public trust, correct?

That is correct.

Can that be indicated in the subpoena when you issue it against this alleged person?

It can be or it can be not. But why will we put the subject betrayal of public trust if the person being subpoena is not being tried for betrayal of public trust?

What if it's against the vice president? Just to clarify, can the subpoena indicate betrayal of public trust?

We cannot put that because that is not a subject of a case under the reprise penal for a crime. The betrayal of public trust is the variable subject of an impeachment court.

All right. So you admit nonetheless that betrayal of public trust is a ground for impeachment, correct?

That is correct. I think it's in the constitution.

Are you saying that once you reach your findings, because we're all waiting for that, is it correct to say that you will file another impeachment case against VP Sara? Oh, thank

you for that question.

Objection, Your Honor. That is speculative.

I think the witness is competent enough, and in fact, thank the counsel for the objection.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. The betrayal of public trust as the issue in the impeachment court. We don't need to investigate even if we pinpointed the person contracted. Because the point being is the betrayal of public trust was already been consummated. When she publicly admitted, there is already an admission that she contracted a killer, a mamamatay tao or assassin to kill the president. And that itself is already an admission.

At sinabi pa niya, pumayag na 'yung kinausap kong mamamatay-tao. That constitutes betrayal of public trust. Why? Because the oath of office of the President, sabi niya, she will execute the law and do justice to everyone. So, pag nagbalak kang pumatay at ginawa mo 'yan, that is no justice to everyone. It's not execute the law, execute the President 'yung gusto mong gawin diyan.

Your Honor, with all due respect, I know that the NBI Director took pains in explaining his answer, but his answer already contains conclusions of fact and law, and may we ask, Your Honor—

May I respond, Your Honor?

I'm not yet done. In keeping, Your Honor, with this Court's ruling last week, may we ask, Your Honor, that it be stricken off the record, Your Honor.

My answer was pretty simple and—

Counsel for the—rather, the lead prosecutor—

My question was pretty simple. Sorry.

Your Honor, ang depensa po ang nagtanong kung mapapatunayan na nag-commit ng betrayal of public trust, kung sasampahan pa ng impeachment ulit, at sinasagot lamang po ng testigo: consummated na ang betrayal of public trust dahil may kausap nang tao na pumayag na to execute the President, the First Lady, and the former Speaker.

precisely the ground for our um motion your honor can we get the ruling the

motion to strike off is denied let the answer of the witness remain in the records that was his answer um council however um um interpretative it may seem with respect to the law since the since the witness was qualified yesterday as not only being the nba director but also engaged in the legal profession for decades and is in fact a former lodin Let that remain in the records for the consideration of the senator-judges. You may proceed, counsel.

All right. My question is this. Are you conducting your ongoing investigation to substantiate this current impeachment case?

Again, sinabi ko na po, kung ang pagbabasihan is betrayal of public trust, nandito na po. Bakit po namin hinahanap 'yung kinausap na papatay?

talking about to be killed? With all due respect, Det. Montoya, a simple yes or no will do.

Hindi po, dahil sinabi ko na nga.

Can you rephrase your question, counsel?

So are you conducting the ongoing investigation to substantiate this current impeachment case?

No need to substantiate because it's already been established.

So the answer is you are not investigating anything in connection with the current ongoing impeachment case?

Yes, because it's already been established.

In so far as the leads to this alleged person, do you share information to the Cybercrime Division?

Kasama po ang Cybercrime Division sa aming pong committee. Kaya kung ano po 'yung mga findings na nandoon, kasama po sila kung sila po ang pumunta. Subalit, kung ito po ay may level of security na hindi naman kailangang malaman ng Cybercrime Division, hindi po namin ito ibinabahagi sa kanila.

All right, so because after all, the cybercrime division is part -

Your Honor, please. What's the question? What's the objection?

May we know if the defense is making a manifestation or raising a question?

I am going

to the question, Your Honor.

He was about to ask a question, I believe, counsel. Let's allow him to finish his question. Counsel may proceed for the respondent.

Because the Cybercrime Division is part of the Special Task Force, correct?

That is correct, po.

How about Agent Lotoc in particular? Do you share the leads to this alleged person with him?

Hindi po. Hindi po siya parte ng Special Task Force.

But wasn't he part of the Cybercrime Division as well?

Hindi po. Siya po ay Regional Director ngayon ng BARMM.

But he was once part of the Cybercrime Division?

Dati po iyon noong hindi pa po ako Director.

Now, let's go to the Special Task Force that you mentioned. You have one team leader and two assistant team leaders in your Special Task Force, correct?

Tama po.

And then how many members from the NCR?

Ang NCR po, yung po ang buong divisyon nakasali at yung tumatayo po na representante nito ay yung kanila pong regional director.

But you mentioned that they are members of the special task force. In your estimation, how many from the NCR are involved? Ang

NCR po, we give the freedom to the regional director kung ano pong action ang kailangan niya aksanan at ano pong team ang kanyang bubuin for purposes of doing a particular investigation in relation to the said task force.

Your Honor, may we respectfully again ask that the court give a directive to Director Matib Agdo, give a more responsive answer. My question is, how many? May I comment, Your

Honor? Council for the Respondent, the question was how many? The answer of the good director was it depends and it would depend on the NCR regional director how many he would assign. Witness will answer if he knows. If he does not, he may so respond as well.

Mr. Presiding Officer, sir, the thing is, depende nga po kung ano po 'yung magiging operation or surveillance na gagawin. We give independence and autonomy po doon sa regional director kung sino po at ilan ang ia-assign. That's why ang composition po ng Special Task Force ay binubuo po ng tatlong individual at lima pong divisions po namin. Dahil nga ang rason po nito ay ipinaliwanag ko po kahapon: masyado pong malawak 'yung nagiging banta na it already transcends to an issue of national security po.

Okay, so you cannot give a number?

Kasi depende nga po sa operations po.

Let the Presiding Officer ask a clarificatory question. Hindi naman po mutually exclusive 'yung naka-assign na ahente po ninyo sa isang kaso lang, 'di ba?

Tama po, Your Honor.

So yung director nyo ng NCR, kung ilan mga ahente na nasa ilalim niya, posibleng lima, sampu, dalawampu, tatlumpung iba't ibang kaso ang tinitingnan nila.

Tama po.

At kung ano man yung kaso may mainit o mainit na dapat panghawakan o malapit nang makuha o mas maraming taong kailangan, lalagyan niya ng tao, tatanggalan din niya, depende kung saan kailangan.

Yes, Your Honor. Tama po.

So, is it correct to state that at any one time, that number will change?

Tama po. Eksakto po.

You may proceed, Counsel.

Alright. So that's for the NCR. Is it the same case for the Cybercrime Division or the CCD?

Sa lahat po ng units na nandoon, parehas po yung ating protocol na ginagawa.

But just to clarify, I'll go through it one by one. So it's the same for the Organized Transnational Crime Division? Ganon din po. Alright. For the Technical Intelligence Division?

Tama po, sapagkat standard po 'yung procedure namin.

For the Digital Forensic Laboratory, or DFL?

Tama rin po.

All right. Now, are these members of this Special Task Force given additional salary for their work for the Special Task Force?

I think that is not allowed po under the law. Baka po bumagsak kami sa audit niyan or sa DBM po.

Ah, so they're basically working with the Special Task Force for free?

Mayroon po silang sweldo. At parte po ng trabaho nila yung ginagawa po nila.

So in other words,

that's already part of their main... Job description. I

think that's how the government system works, respectfully.

All right. Now, yesterday, you brought confidential records regarding your leads, correct?

Tama po.

Did you bring those records again today?

Rito po, sa aking [unclear] po.

And are these records from the Special Task Force?

Iba-iba po. Halo-halo na po.

Halo-halo na. All right. And you mentioned that you cannot share these records to the public. Is that the case?

Tama po. Binanggit ko po kahapon.

Alright. Now, if the Honorable Court issues a subpoena, will you comply?

Pag-aaralan po natin kung naaayon sa batas ay pwede nating ipagbigay alam po sa impeachment court na ito.

Alright. Don't you believe that ang katotohanan ay hindi confidential?

Meron po tayong proseso na sinusunod. Kung ito man ay totoo at ito ay magva-violate po sa batas, baka hindi po natin dapat itong gawin.

Dapat hindi payagan, no?

Hindi po, sir. Hindi dapat payagan, I think, sa linya po ng inyong katanungan.

Objection, Your Honor. The question is already argumentative.

I'll just move on to a new point. Anyway, during the time of Director Santiago—and let me lay the basis—around 15 months, they didn't identify the alleged person that VP Sara talked to. And based on your testimony yesterday, it will take three to six months, even more, for this Special Task Force to come up with definite findings as to the identity of this alleged person, correct?

Sinabi ko po 3 to 6 months, hindi po even more.

Okay, we'll just check the transcript for that but at any rate, will this task force continue to exist and operate until you finally identify this alleged person or does it have a time limit?

Kailangan po nga aming matagpuan yung pong taong So,

as long as you cannot provide a concrete output, the Special Task Force will continue to exist.

Asked and answered, Your Honor. Asked and answered.

Move on, Counsel.

Alright. By the way, does NBI have intelligence funds?

Wala po, sir.

All right.

Now, you also mentioned the Rage Coalition event, which was held at Club Filipino on April 12, 2026, correct?

Tama po.

Now, this was already around 14 months from VP Sara's press conference, correct?

Tama po.

Now, my question to you is this: was VP Sara present in that April 12, 2026 event?

Wala po siya, sir.

All right. Now, you mentioned also the concept of kinetic force. Can you recall?

Yes, sir.

Now, my question to you is this: despite the lapse of 14 months and the absence of VP Sara in that event, you still concluded that this event was still part of what you call kinetic force. Is that the case?

Tama po.

All right. And based on your findings, this kinetic force came from VP Sara's November 23, 2024 press conference, correct?

Hindi lamang po iyon. Ang sinabi ko po ay may pagkakaugnay sapagkat 'yung pong statement na, ‘I want to cut his head. Gusto kong kunin ang ulo niya.’ At ang sinabi din po ni Mayor Baste, eh, ‘Isang ulo lang ang kailangan namin, ang ulo ni Pangulong Bongbong Marcos.’

So, you mentioned also that there was a participant in a PBBM rally overseas.

Hindi po ito rally. Meron pong event ang ating Pangulo sa Nueva Ecija. Naka-live broadcast po ito sa RTBN, at meron pong nagkomento bigla na sinabi, ‘Barilin na 'yan.’

Can you recall the date of that event? You said event?

Hindi ko po ma-recall 'yung eksaktong date, pero nandito rin po sa record namin 'yan.

But is this also part of the kinetic force that you mentioned?

Lumalabas po sa aming pag-aaral.

How about 'yung nangyari kay Undersecretary Claire Castro in Canada? Is this also part of the kinetic force?

Irrelevant, Your Honor.

We're trying to lay the basis, Your Honor.

Witness may answer.

Well, ito na nga po 'yung sinasabi natin na nagkakaroon po ng malawakang kaguluhan na epekto po ng madalas na pagbabanta at seryosong pagbabanta sa Pangulo, na ngayon ang mga taong kahit na ordinaryo ay inaatake po, hindi lamang ang Pangulo kundi ang iba pa rin pong matataas na posisyon. So the answer is yes, it's part of the kinetic force.

So, in other words, this kinetic force can reach foreign countries?

Lumalabas po na gano'n. Dahil marami po tayong Pilipino na nandoon na napapanood po sa social media.

Now, how about the flood control rallies? Is this part of the kinetic force?

'Yung flood control rally na—aling pong flood control rally, to be specific? Probably. Baka po, kung maaari lang po, sir, bigyan n'yo ako ng specific para po mas maipaliwanag ko po.

I'll just move on. So, any descent? Against the government must be attributed to this kinetic force. Is that what you're saying?

It's speculative, your honor.

Witness may answer if he knows.

Depende po kung anong event. Kaya nga po ang ginagawa po ng NBI ay atin pong sinusuri lahat ng pangyayari. Kahapon po inilatag namin yung limang batayan namin para po magkaroon tayo ng malinaw na threat assessment sa lahat po ng pangyayari.

Alright. Now, isn't it that Mayor Baste, that participant in the PBBM event, The rallies in Canada and the flood control rallies, don't they have a mind of their own?

Your Honor, we are objecting on the ground of vague. Kindly clarify the question. Kindly

Reform Council. I also did not quite get the question. Kindly Reform Council.

So are you saying that these people that I mentioned, They cannot act independently and are compelled by the kinetic force that you mentioned.

Sino pong mga tao?

Mayor Bastet, the participant in the PBBM rally, the rallies in Canada, and the flood control rallies.

Una po, there's no PBBM rally. No, no, sorry—PBBM event. Sorry, I stand corrected. PBBM event. 'Yung sa Canada. Tsaka 'yun nga po, alin po bang flood control? Mabalik ko lang po roon, pasensya na po, sir, para po mas ma-contextualize po nating mabuti.

Yes, Your Honor, please. May we request clarification from the defense? I

I think the question, Director Matibag, is: produkto po ba nung binabanggit ninyong kinetic energy kahapon 'yung mga pagkilos laban sa administrasyon at individual na mga miyembro ng administrasyon?

Respectfully, Your Honor, sapagkat marami pong may pagkilos po na iba-ibang grupo na posibleng hindi. May pagkilos na hindi, may pagkilos na oo. Tama po. Kaya we have to qualify; we have to treat each event independently and apply the five-factor test that we are applying po sa mga pangyayari po.

So hindi porkit laban sa o tutol sa gobyerno o sa particular na official ng gobyerno ay ito na yung binabanggit ninyong kinetic action?

Tama po, Your Honor.

Counsel may proceed. Alright. My question is this. Is this Kinetic Force still active today or has it stopped?

Malinaw po. May mga pangyayari pa rin po.

And should we really stop this Kinetic Force or just allow it until 2028?

Hindi ko po pakiulit po.

Anyway, I'll withdraw that question. Just move on to a different question. Is this kinetic force a legal concept?

Ito po ay konteksto sa aming base sa aming investigasyon. Again, ibabalik ko po sa aming limang naging patayan na ginagamit din po ng ibang jurisdiksyon para makapag-establish po ng isang threat para sa isang national threat assessment.

Again, just a manifestation that it's not responsive but I'll just move on to a different point.

Your Honor, please.

What is the pressure of the lead counsel?

The defense is making a side comment to the answer of the witness. Can we please remind him to avoid making side comment as previously invoked by the impeachment court? Then I will

raise another motion, Your Honor, that the witness's answer is not responsive.

Councils, let this not be a debate between and amongst the two parties. Let the witness answer and give his testimony. Council, you may proceed.

Alright. Was the RAGE coalition event a political rally?

Palagay ko po sapagkat ang nanodon po ng mga political party po ng PDP laban at yung pong reforma na pinamumunahan po ng dating Speaker Bebot Alvarez.

Former dean ba, Director, or current dean? Former po. Nag-resign na po. So as a lawyer

and a former dean, you are aware that political speech is constitutionally protected, correct?

Depende po kung anong dalumpati. You have to qualify.

And unless we are under martial law again, Mayor Bastet should be able to freely express his dissent to the government.

Your Honor, that is speculative.

Let the witness answer. He is competent to answer that question.

Unang-una, tama naman po kayo. Wala namang martial law ngayon at puwede naman pong magsalita. But freedom of expression has limitations also. Kung ito po ay nag-violate na ng batas at nakakasama na sa ating bayan, ay hindi naman po ito kasama na sa freedom of expression.

Alright. But my question to you is this. Did he directly urge the people to overthrow the government in that trial?

Ang sinabi po niya, base sa aking testimonya, ay isang ulo lang ang gusto namin, ang ulo ni Bongbong Marcos. At kung matatandaan po ninyo, I correlated it doon sa dati pang mga pangyayari. Hindi lang po 'yung event at sinabi na 'yun ang aming pinagbasehan, base sa aming pamantayan po sa pag-assess po ng banta o ng threat po.

But that was your own interpretation of what he said.

That is not only my interpretation, but it's the interpretation of the National Bureau of Investigation, based on the standards that we follow, consistent to the standards that you're following.

Is it your interpretation that those also demonstrate destabilization efforts?

Please repeat. Pakiulit po, sir.

Is it also the NBI's interpretation that those remarks constitute destabilization?

Argumentative, Your Honor.

If the witness can answer, if he knows.

Ano pong particular na sinabi?

That speech by Mayor Baste, in general.

'Yun pong kanyang sinabi na ang ulo lamang ni Bongbong Marcos ang kailangan namin. At sabi ko nga, in correlation to the other events, applying the five-factor standards that we have been using, which is recognized by other jurisdictions, doon po kami nagkaroon po ng conclusion.

Sorry, Director, I didn't quite get your answer. So, are you saying that that's destabilization or no destabilization?

[unclear], Your Honor.

The Director hasn't answered yet. He cited the basis but cut short of answering the question. So, is it based on the five pillars of your investigation, Director?

Opo yan, based on the five pillars na natin po, lumalabas po ng isa doon sa

elemento ng five pillars, it comply po. Sumasagot po doon. At hindi po destabilization, kundi banta po sa kaligtasan ng Pangulo na naging banta na rin po sa pambansang siguridad po.

So you're admitting that there was no destabilization?

Argumentative, Your Honor. It's connected to the question, Your Honor.

Counsel, the witness has answered for the appreciation of the Senator and judges. You may proceed to a similar question or move on to another topic. I'll proceed

With a similar question, Director, I am showing you a news article. This is Exhibit D-4-66 entitled, and I quote, ‘Palace Dismisses Destab Rumors vs. Marcos Admin.’ So it was published quite recently, May 12, 2026, and for the sake of time I will just read the first line thereof.

Assisting counsel for the parties may approach.

It says here, and I quote: ‘Malacañang on Tuesday said it has not received any information about supposed destabilization efforts against President Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos Jr.’ My question to you is this: Claire Castro speaks on behalf of PBBM, correct?

Being the spokesperson, tama po sir.

And based on her statement in this news article, there has been no destabilization efforts against PBBM, at least as of this date. Correct.

Well, baka po dapat tingnan natin yung buong konteksto because sa other security cluster, may pinag-uusapan po dyan. Maring ang tinitingnan niya na walang destabilization, there is no destabilization from the rank of men in uniforms. So hindi po natin masasabi na yun na yung kabuuan talaga.

Alright. I'm showing you another recent article, Exhibit D-4-67. This article is June 12, 2026. So again, quite recent. And again, for the purpose of time, I'll just read the title. It says, Sara Duterte I won't grab Marcos' position. My question to you is this. Isn't this news article also consistent with no destabilization efforts that Claire Castro previously mentioned?

Basi po sa aking binabasa, baka mas maganda po si Vice President Sara Duterte makasagot nito because she's speaking of a state of mind. Sa isip po niya yan eh.

But if you know...

Your Honor, may I comment?

What is the comment of the lead prosecutor?

The witness never said that there is destabilization. As a matter of fact, what he said during the earlier question is threat to the life of the president amounts to threat to national security. Now he is being asked about these pictures concerning the stab. This is misleading, Your Honor. The

observation of the lead prosecutor is noted. It is not an objection. Counsel, proceed. Counsel, respondent.

You identified an unsigned and unnotarized document which allegedly pertains to an affidavit of Arturo Lascañas, correct?

Yes, sir.

All right. Now, if you know, is this the same Lascañas who appeared before the Senate in 2016 and 2017?

Yes, sir.

Okay. So, in fact, this is the same Lascañas who was charged by the Senate panel, led by then-Senator and still-Senator Panfilo Lacson, with a recommendation for perjury.

Hindi ko po nabalitaan niyo kung sino siya ng perjury. But if it's on record, then the answer will be yes.

Alright. Well, he was, or maybe we can confirm it later with Senator Judge Lacson. But, and this perjury was committed during a Senate Committee hearing, if you know only.

Siguro po, doon na lang natin ilagay sa affidavit po na nabasa ko.

No, the only question is the perjury. If you know only that the perjury was recommended for charging—[unclear].

I have no personal knowledge.

Your Honor, the witness is incompetent to answer that question. Counsel, I think the

witness already said that he is not aware of it, but that if it is on the record, then most likely it is true. That was the response of the witness earlier.

I'll just move on to a new point. Now, allow me to read a statement of Senator Lacson, and then I'll ask questions thereafter.

May we request, Your Honor, that the witness be confronted with a document if... I think the defense is reading from a document.

Yes, Your Honor. We will provide the hard copy.

We will provide the hard copy, and then we'll also show the soft copy on the screen, Your Honor.

Assisting counsel is authorized to approach from both parties.

I will read, and I quote Senator Lacson: ‘Ang maipapayo ko lamang kay SPO3 Lascañas, kung ang layunin ng inyong quote-unquote extrajudicial confession ay mapanagot sa ilalim ng batas si Pangulong Rodrigo Duterte at iba pang personalidad, marapat lamang na maliban sa inyong salaysay ay may maipakita ka pang bukod at ibang ebidensya. Kung wala ay maaaring masayang lamang ang oras ng mga tao dito dahil baka walang kahihinatnan ang isinasagawa nating pagdinig sa araw na ito laban sa sinumang mga taong idinadawit mo.’ Are you aware of this statement by Senator Lacson against Lascañas?

Ngayon po nabasa po.

At any rate, you mentioned yesterday that you did an open-source investigation to obtain the Lascañas document, correct?

That is correct po, sir.

But to be candid, was it just a Google search?

Hindi po.

Are you at liberty to disclose what method you used in that open-source investigation?

We were provided—dito po nagsimula iyon—we got hold of a copy of the affidavit of Arturo Lascañas.

With the permission of counsel for the respondent, the Chair will allow the intervention of Senator-Judge Lacson, given that his name was mentioned—in fact, not only alluded to, but mentioned—by counsel for respondent. Senator-Judge Lacson is recognized to give a manifestation.

Thank you for allowing me to interject. Maski hindi naayos sa unan yung pahayag kanina. Kasi ang worry ko, pag inupuraw ako doon, interpolate ako ni Sen. Lapid.

So, having said that, anyway, levity aside, Mr. Presiding Officer, basahin ko lang 'yung portion ng committee report kasi I chaired the Committee on Public Order when we investigated the EJK. And indeed, I will confirm that Arturo Lascañas retracted and changed his testimony. After several hearings, nag-retract siya. But hindi po ako nag-file ng perjury. Gusto ko lang i-correct 'yan. Ang recommendation po sa Roman numeral number 6, recommendations—

Part po ito ng committee report. In view of the foregoing, the committee recommends the following. One, amendment of the revised penal code to increase the penalty for the crime of perjury. Yun po yung context na dahil committee report ito, nagre-recommend ako na i-amend yung revised penal code, particularly sa krimen ng perjury. Pero gusto ko lang i-correct na hindi ako nag-file ng perjury. Thank you. Thank you. The

manifestation is noted. Council for the Respondent may proceed.

But, at liberty to disclose who searched for that Las Calles document?

Ito nga po. Yung pong dokumento, we got hold of it. Sabi nga po natin, meron po kami mga tinatawag na aming mga informants at mga source. It was provided to us. Nung ibinigay po sa amin to, hindi naman po ibig sabihin ay aming kaagad itong paniniwalaan na tama po kayo.

That's okay. I can ask subsequent questions regarding that. So, actually my question is, after you had obtained this document, did you subpoena Las Cañas to verify the contents of those documents?

Hindi po, sapagkat he has nowhere to be found.

That's enough. So, without verification, you decided to believe the contents of the document that you obtained?

Again, ibabalik ko po roon sa lima nating factors. Isinama lamang namin po ito, isa doon sa mga factors na sinasabi po natin, 'yung pattern of violence na tinatawag. At doon po, nandoon sa paragraph 270, sinasabi nga po na may kinalaman sa extrajudicial killing si dating Mayor Sara Duterte, and in fact, sabi pa nga niya, huwag n'yo nang barilin, kidnapin n'yo na lang. Pero bago po kami dumating doon sa punto na gamitin 'yun, tiningnan na naman po namin 'yan.

Sorry to interrupt you. So the short answer to my question is yes.

Pakiulit po 'yung tanong ninyo.

The question is, did you decide to believe the contents of the document without verifying it with Las Cañas?

'Yun nga po 'yung sagot po. Hindi kaagad. Kaya po ikinukuwento ko nga kung paano po namin nagamit 'yun. So hindi po kaagad namin pinaniwalaan.

Your Honor, may I just manifest that the defense is actually misleading already the witness. He kept on raising the question, ‘Did you believe right away?’ when, as a matter of fact, the witness is explaining—

Your Honor, I never meant... Sorry. Council,

kindly let the litigant persecutor finish.

The witness has been saying that he did a lot of things after receiving the affidavit of Las Cañas to the extent of going over the five factors that he testified to yesterday. But after that first question, so that means yes. The defense said yes to his question, did you believe to that right away, to that affidavit? The position of the witness, your honor, is no. Actually, ask and

answered by the witness. That is his response, counsel-forrespondent, to your question.

Move on, counsel. Yes, your honor. We are satisfied with that answer. But another follow-up question. So without verifying it... That's

misleading, your honor.

Allow him to finish the question, counsel. What is the pleasure of Senator Judge Gaetano?

Just on your ruling... May be clarified because the question was, pinaniliwalaan mo ba? Ang sagot niya, hindi ka agad. So, council was asking for yes or no. I just want to be clarified. Hindi pinaniliwalaan agad, does that mean afterwards pinaniliwalaan mo na or never mo pinaniliwalaan? Just so that the record is clear. Just that clarification.

Thank you, Senator Judge Cayetano. Alan? Witness will please answer.

Yes, Your Honor. Kaya ko nga po ikinikwento yung buong pangyayari. Para po makita kung paano po kami dumating doon sa punto na ginamit po doon sa pattern of violence yung pong abidabit na ito.

Dadaan niyo doon sa inyong SOP sa investigasyon, kalaunan, pinaniwalaan na

ninyo at sa ngayon, pinapaniwalaan po ninyo yung nakasaad doon sa dokumentong iyon?

Kalaunan po. Ito ay ginamit na namin na isasabasehan doon sa pattern of violence pagkatapos po naming idaan sa proseso.

So pinaniwalaan ninyo na? Pinanghawakan ninyo na?

Sa ngayon po, tama po, Your Honor.

Okay.

And pinapaniwalaan niyo yun without issuing a subpoena to Las Cañas and clarifying the matter with him.

Ask and answer, Your Honor.

It's a different question, Your Honor. We're already at this point. Witness may answer. Pakialit po. So, you mentioned na pinapaniwalaan niyo na siya ngayon as clarified by the chair. So, are you saying that pinapaniwalaan niyo na ngayon without issuing a subpoena to Las Cañas and verifying it with him?

Hindi po nag-issue ng subpoena kay Las Cañas pero meron pong naging verification process.

All right. But not with Lascañas. Who is the author of that document?

As answered po, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer would like to remind the witness to kindly avoid making a ruling foreign behalf of the Presiding Officer. But the gentleman would have been correct. The Presiding Officer would have said the same thing. Thank you for saving me the trouble. But try to avoid that, Director Matibag.

Sorry po, Your Honor.

Thank you. Council may proceed.

All right. Director Matibag, yesterday I identified two videos, and you related them with the alleged pattern of behavior of VP Sara, correct? The first video that you showed, I think, involved the sheriff.

Tama po.

But that incident, will you confirm that that incident took place on July 1, 2011?

Yes, long time ago po.

So around 15 years ago?

Tama po.

And did you still find it relevant to use that video?

Under po doon sa five factors namin, ang tinitingnan po natin sa pattern of violence is the historical behavior. Kasama po 'yun.

With the permission of counsel for respondent, what is the pleasure of Senator-Judge Hontiveros?

If I may, Mr. Presiding Officer, before the defense moves on to the next question, just to ask a follow-up question on the previous topic.

On this matter?

On the matter of the Lascañas affidavit, Mr. Presiding Officer.

proceed with that question on Las Cañas only.

Salamat po, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Follow-up question, Mr. Witness. According to your testimony yesterday, you reviewed Arturo Las Cañas' affidavit as part of the larger investigation. Concerning the Vice President's capacity to carry out the alleged threat. Sa pagkakaalam po ninyo, Director, at batay din sa larger investigation na iyon, sinagot po ba ng Vice Presidente sa anumang paraan yung mga aligasyon sa affidavit na iyon ni Las Cañas?

Your Honor, marami po kasi kaming—'yun nga po 'yung gusto kong ipaliwanag—marami po kasi kaming kino-consider na tinatawag natin na open-source intel. 'Yan na po 'yung mga news, mga report. At nung tinitingnan po namin 'yan, si Arturo Lascañas, meron pa po siyang lumabas na balita noon nung isinumite na itong affidavit na ito sa ICC. At naaalala ko po, mayroon din pong lumabas sa balita na mismong si Vice President Sara Duterte, parang sinasabi po niya roon na hindi ko kailangan ng DDS para gumawa ng kayang gawin ng DDS, something to that effect po. Na-consider po namin lahat po 'yan.

Sa sinabi ninyong sinabi diumano ni Vice President, sinabi niya hindi niya kailangan ang DDS para gawin ang—

'Yung kayang gawin ng DDS. Something like that po. Hindi ko po eksaktong ma-recall 'yung phrase na pagkakasabi po.

Salamat, Mr. Witness. I may return to that point later.

redirect, and recross. When she avails for time, counsel for respondent may proceed.

All right, let's go back to the sheriff incident. I'm glad you mentioned history or historical background. Are you aware that that sheriff incident pertains to relief operations that were being conducted by the Vice President, then-Mayor at that time, or Vice Mayor?

Ang pagkakaalam ko po doon sa balita na iyon, itong sheriff na to is trying to enforce a valid order from a legitimate court. Demolition order po ito na ayaw ipatuloy po ng then mayor and now vice president. So, I might not be aware of a relief operation. Baka po paliwanag po

sa akin.

I'll just ask you if you're aware. Are you aware that it involved a flash flood? This incident happened after a flash flood in that particular community?

Hindi po lumabas siya sa balita.

I have no knowledge of that.

Are you aware that VP Sara asked that sheriff for an extension of two hours just to help the victims?

'Yun po 'yung lumabas sa balita.

And this sheriff and the demolition that you mentioned involved the demolition of informal settlers in that area?

Opo, kaya po may order of eviction, ibig sabihin po.

Are you aware that 30 people died during that incident?

I have no knowledge of that, Your Honor.

So, in other words, are you also aware that it was the sheriff's refusal to provide the two-hour extension—that's why VP Sara got angry?

Well, that is the claim of the then mayor.

If you know only, if you know.

I have no knowledge.

All right, I'll move on to a new point. Now, you also mentioned, to establish this alleged pattern of behavior, the October 18, 2024 press conference, correct?

Tama po.

And this press conference took place, obviously, before the material that you used, or the November 23, 2024 press conference?

Tama po.

All right, I'm showing you a video. Your Honor, we'll just show one video; it's around one minute. This is Exhibit D-4-53 and the USB separately marked as D-4-47. And then I'll ask you questions after this.

Kindly play the video. The tech through the clerk of court is so directed.

Inulit ng bata, louder this time: ‘Mr. President, can I have your watch as a graduation gift?’ Ang sagot niya—

Why? Why will I give you my watch?

At that point, ay sakit na ako kasi feeling very well.

Nandunin lang ako. Nakakatayo ako dun kasi may gamot ako.

Gusto ko ang ganun yung ulo niya ba.

I realized, toxic na yung relationship.

It did not help na itong dalawang katabi ko tumawa pa. Pinagtawanan pa nila yung bata.

I saw the humiliation sa face ng bata. I wanted to help him. Gusto ko sabihin sa kanya, itong relo ko na lang, relo ito ng vice-presidente, relo ito ng

relo ng presidente, pero I hope this will do. And then I realized na baka mas lalong mapahiya yung bata if I do that. So I just imagined

myself cutting his head.

Gusto ko ganun din ako.

First of all, did you watch this whole video, Director Matib?

I've watched not the entirety of the video.

Not the entirety because it's a long video. It's almost two hours. But my question to you is this: is this the video where you based your finding that VP Sara said, ‘Gusto kong tanggalin ang ulo niya,’ imagine cutting his head off? Is this the one?

'Yun po. 'Yun po 'yung video na 'yan.

And will you agree with—wasn't this press conference heard by the general public?

Opo.

And didn't VP Sara say her statements in jest?

It's speculative, Your Honor.

Your Honor, the witness is smart enough and competent enough to answer.

Nevertheless, Your Honor. Witness may answer.

Well, again, I will say I cannot go into the state of mind of the Vice President. And precisely the reason why, doon sa pattern of violence, kasama po talaga 'yan, eh, 'yung pag-consider natin. I understand her disgust doon sa nangyari, but probably, pag pinagsama-sama po 'yung aming investigation, mga aming napanood, kasama po 'yan. Doon po namin na-establish 'yung isa doon sa limang factors na pattern of violence.

I understand what you're saying, but my question to you is: didn't you take VP Sara's statement out of context?

Mahirap po para sa aming law enforcement na 'yung ganyang mga statement ay amin pong baliwalain. Katunayan, alam naman po natin, kahit nga biro—halimbawa po, 'yung bomb joke nga po sa eroplano, hinuhuli natin. It's a different thing if you're doing a bomb joke sa eroplano at saka sa open field na kayo lang. Sa amin po sa law enforcement, we have to give credence to that and i-process po namin.

So, at any rate, you consider this portion of VP Sara's statement to be grave and serious—to be a grave and serious threat based on the standards that you mentioned yesterday?

Hindi po 'yun ang sinabi ko. Ang sinabi ko po, kasama siya doon sa kino-consider na marami pong factors para ma-establish po ang pattern of violence.

Isn't that kind of a stretch?

It's argumentative, Your Honor.

Argumentative. Move on, counsel.

Nothing further, Your Honor. Salamat po, sir.

Redirect? Lead prosecutor, any redirect?

Your Honor, may I request for a five-minute break?

Instead of granting the break, Chair will open the floor for the interjections and interventions of some of the Senator Judges. You have your five minutes, Counsel. Senator Judge Erwin Tulfo, thereafter. Senator Judge Lacson, thereafter. Senator Judge Rafi Tulfo. And hopefully... Senator Judges Villanueva and Pangilinan, that might be in excess of five minutes already. We're making the most out of the five minutes. Just one manifestation,

Your Honor, regarding the interpellation of the good Senator Hontiveros, we just want to state for the record, Your Honor, that insofar as the Lascañas affidavit, the Vice President was never given an opportunity to respond to it. Formally. Formally.

Noted. Senator-Judge—yes, counsel?

Counsel for the respondent, anything additional?

And the VP was also not made to answer to the—what was this? And it was not part of the impeachment complaint, Your Honor, for the record.

Noted. Noted. Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo, you have two minutes, sir.

you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Sa ating testigo, kahapon po nabanggit ninyo na meron na po kayong persons of interest na kinausap na po ng Vice President Sara Duterte para patayin ang Pangulo, First Lady, at former Speaker of the House. Ang tanong ko po, paano pala ninyo ito natuklasan, natunton ang impormasyong ito? Gayong sa kanya pong press conference, wala naman po siyang sinabi kung sino ang mga taong ito. Sinabi niya lang na may kinausap na po siya. How did you find out?

Ganito po 'yan. Sa lahat naman po ng kaso na hinahawakan po ng National Bureau of Investigation, para po maging successful 'yung aming pag-imbestiga, nagre-rely po kami sa iba't ibang intelligence report. May tinatawag na open-source intel, human intelligence, and we also use tools to monitor things. At nag-trim down po tayo niyan; tinitingnan po natin hanggang dumating tayo doon sa punto na mayroon pong resolusyon 'yung ating pong kasong tinitingnan with regards to persons of interest. 'Yung prosesong din 'yan po ang ating pong sinundan.

Okay. Without mentioning po kung sino itong mga tao na ito, or 'yung pagkakilanlan nila, kung nasaan sila, maaari po ba ninyong bigyan kami ng idea itong mga persons of interest na ito, kung ano po talaga ang trabaho nila? Kung sila po ba talaga mga hitman, o mga gun for hire, o riding in tandem? Ano po ang klaseng trabaho mayroon itong mga ito?

ang tinatawag na connection, yung network po. Alam naman natin na siya ay

Vice President, at ang dating Pangulo ay kanyang ama. Ibig sabihin, nakadevelop po ito ng mga relasyon, unang-una na sa mga men in uniform na hanggang sa ngayon, marami po rito na na-appoint pa niya noong panahon na sila ay nandoon. Nabanggit ko rin 'yung Vice Presidential Security Group at 'yung mga Davao Death Squad. So tiningnan po natin, by process of elimination, 'yung mga tao po na maaaring doon nanggaling o maaaring nakakaalam. Nag-start po kami sa maraming individuals hanggang sa ma-trim down po namin ngayon. Kaya sinabi ko po kahapon sa katanungan ng ating Senate President, ganoon ba katagal pa ito? And I said we have great progress. Dahil nagsimula po kami sa marami, ngayon na-trim down na po namin sa iilang personalidad po.

Okay. Pangalawa sa huling katanungan ko po, Ginoong Testigo, ay itong threat na ito. Ito po hanggang ngayon ay continuing threat po ito, or puwedeng i-execute anytime ng mga sinasabi ninyong persons of interest?

Yun na po yung ating pong pangamba na nakikita. Because hindi po natin nakukuha, sigurado po tayo na may kinausap at pumayang, subalit yung pagkakakilanlan ng taong kinausap ay hindi pa rin po natin nakukuha. So ibig sabihin po, yung threat po na ito sa Pangulo is a continuing and active threat, po in serious. So yun po yung gusto nating i-address dito.

Panguling katanungan na lamang, Mr. Witness. Na-informa na po ba ang Pangulo at ang kanyang PSG para alam nila ang kanilang gagawin at hindi po sila malingat sa kanilang siguridad?

Meron po kaming tuloy-tuloy na pakikipag-ugnayan sa palasyo po. I will not mention who exactly yung mga kausap po namin doon but there's always continuing threat assessment po na ginagawa po kami.

Thank you Mr. Witness. Presiding Officer, thank you.

Thank you Sen. Judge Erwin Tulfo, Sen. Judge Lacson. Thereafter, we will recognize first with the indulgence of Senator Judge Rafi Tulfo, the lead prosecutor for her manifestation. As I understand, she asked for time for a huddle to determine whether she will still conduct redirects. So, Senator Judge Lacsonas, recognized. You have two minutes,

Thank you, sir, Presiding Officer. Follow-up lang ito sa mga points raised by Senator-Judge Raffy Tulfo kahapon relating to three similar cases: Ronel Mas, Mayor Baste Duterte, saka VP Sara. Hindi ko na ibe-belabor 'yung Ronel Mas and Mayor Baste kasi aware naman ako doon sa Rule 113, Section 5, 'yung warrantless arrest, na hindi puwedeng i-apply. Nagkamali nga 'yung NBI kay Ronel Mas, kaya na-dismiss 'yung case, 'di po ba? But I'm more interested in the cases of Mayor Baste at saka kay VP Sara, kasi almost similar 'yung kanilang mga sinabi. Pero I'm just wondering why you did not investigate Mayor Baste, pero si Mayor Sara, hindi lang kayo nag-investigate, nag-prepare pa kayo ng complaint sa DOJ, 'di po ba?

'Yan po 'yung aming ginawang investigation ay doon na po sa threat na sinasabi namin na pangkalawakan. 'Yung dito po kay Mayor Baste, kaya hindi po natin iniimbestigahan, isinasama po namin dito sa task force na ito to come out with the report eventually. But we have coordination also po with other agencies.

Yes. So walang ongoing law-enforcement investigation against Mayor Baste?

Kasama po dito sa special task force po.

'Yung bang Special Task Force—and this was also raised by the Presiding Officer nung nasa lounge kami kanina—na-form ba ito in relation to or in reference to the case of Mayor Baste o kay Vice President Sara?

'Yung pong trigger point na nangyari dito ay 'yung pong kay Mayor Baste po. But prior to that, we were continually monitoring the threat. Kasama po sa aming pag-uusap 'yan. In fact, 'yung pong aming reporting of records, as early as noong nag-assume po ako ng February, mga first week pa lang po ng March, kasama na po sa reporting 'yung mga threat assessment. But nung napansin po namin na itong rage rally na ito can escalate to a bigger threat to national security, doon po namin ipinasok ito.

So mas ang ginamit ninyo 'yung kay Mayor Baste as an open source, kaysa sa mag-file kayo ng criminal complaint against Mayor Baste?

Ganoon po 'yung naging process namin dito. But eventually, we have an agreement within us that if we can establish that the elements for grave threats will be there, we will be contemplating also filing grave threats and inciting to sedition as well.

Pero halos pareho, eh. Kaya iniisip ko baka merong double standard. Bakit kaya nag-focus kay Vice President, pero hindi n'yo in-apply kay Mayor Baste? Eh halos pareho ang sinabi nila. Maliwanag naman, bukod doon sa January 2026, naulit pa ng April 12, di ba, na sinabing [unclear], threat against the first family; nasundan pa ng ‘pupugot, ang kailangan lang namin 'yung ulo.’ Pero kay Vice President, halos ganoon din, eh. Pero bakit inimbestigahan n'yo si Vice President Sara at na-refer n'yo na sa DOJ for preliminary investigation, pero 'yung kay Mayor Baste, parang uneven, nasa law-enforcement investigation pa rin?

Sapagkat ang isa pong dine-develop namin dito na theory po is 'yung sabwatan. And alam po natin, if we go to court using the theory of conspiracy, medyo mas mahirap po na ipasok na kaso. So kaya it's taking much time to develop the case po.

May request for additional time, Mr. Presiding Officer. Punta lang kay Lascañas.

Opo.

Okay. 'Yung kay Lascañas, ginamit ninyo 'yung kanyang affidavit na isinumite sa ICC.

Tama po.

Parang pang open source. Not for anything, di ba?

Not for anything po.

So walang evidentiary value ito?

Yun po ay ang basehan namin, kaya po namin iprinisinta. Isa po sa naging basehan namin dun po sa isa nga dun sa five standards po natin na pattern of violence po.

Pero wala kayong intention na kung magpapile kayo ng kaso, As a

As a matter of reference lang po, for the purpose of establishing the pattern of violence. But to directly papanagutin po sa isang krimen or what, eh sa palagay ko po baka po hindi ito tatanggapin ng korte po.

Yeah, kasi kung open source, hindi nga tatanggapin ng korte.

Tama po.

Kasi kung open source, kung nag-extend pa kayo and expanded 'yung open-source information gathering, dapat sana na-review ninyo rin 'yung aming committee hearing dito. 'Yung na-mention kanina ng defense na initially deny nang deny talaga si Arturo Lascañas tungkol sa DDS, EJK, et cetera. Eventually, nag-retract siya, talagang 180 degrees. Sinabi niya, totoo 'yung EJK. Hindi ba dapat part din 'yon ng open-source information gathering ninyo?

Tama po. Actually, nung binasa po namin 'yung affidavit, may isang paragraph doon na nagtukoy nga diyan na nag-testify at saka binawi. Ang sinundan na po namin dito—at naalala ko po, meron kasing news report doon sa 24 Oras after ng pre-trial po sa ICC—nagkaroon po ng interview kay Lascañas kung saan sinasabi niya 'yung affidavit na ginawa niya na isinumite sa ICC. At nung kinukumpara po namin doon sa sinasabi niya, lumalabas na 'yun po. Pangatlo na po 'yun.

So alam ninyo, iba 'yung affidavit niya, 'yung kanyang testimony sa Public Order and Dangerous Drugs Committee, which, as I said earlier, I chaired. Kaya alam ko, familiar ako. Then after that, nag-retract siya, talagang complete turnaround. So I even consulted a retired justice na kaibigan ko: ano bang mas matimbang dito? Ang sabi niya, talagang jurisprudence, 'yung original na statement ang mananaig kaysa doon sa parang binaligtad na statement, which I also agreed. Ang point ko lang is, bakit parang namili lang kayo ng open source?

Kung titingnan ninyo 'yung sa ICC na isinumite na pagkahaba-haba, sa akin nga po sinabi kanina, pangatlo na po 'yung magkakaibang affidavits ni Arturo Lascañas. May nauna, may pangalawa. Pangatlo na po itong pinapakita sa screen kahapon.

Tama po. And we are also aware doon sa pagbalibaligtad. But on the news that I was mentioning po, Your Honor, mismong sinabi niya, pipirmahan 'yung affidavit, at sinabi po niya, ‘This is 186 pages.’ So nung tinitingnan po namin 'yung statement na iyan, tumugma. At pangalawa, it's been the subject already of an ICC. It's being used as evidence. At least there is a legitimate court that's looking into it. It was considered—ibig sabihin, tinanggap po ng isang legitimate na korte po.

I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I'm just trying to be fair. Kasi gusto ko talagang maliwanagan para pagdating ng takdang oras, alam po yung aking boto. Thank you,

Senator Judge Lacson. Before the Chair recognizes Senators, Senator Judge Rafi Tulfo, Senator Judge Aquino, and Senator Judge Padilla, Chair would like to call on the lead prosecutor again.

Thank you for the sequence.

Yes, what is the pleasure of the lead prosecutor? Shall you conduct, redirect?

Your Honor, the prosecution believes that we have sufficiently established that the threat to the President constitutes threat to the national security.

Counsel, you are once again reminded to kindly avoid conclusions of law. The question was simple, so I guess you will not conduct any further redirect.

Nonetheless, Your Honor, there are some manifestations that I would like to make.

As long as these are not conclusions of fact and law, counsel, as

you have been

reminded and guided accordingly. You may proceed.

It is the position, Your Honor, of the prosecution that we have established already. Objection, Your

Honor. Again, this is a conclusion of fact and law, Your Honor. Counsel,

I'm... The council correspondent is correct. I will give the same limitation to whatever manifestations he will make in this regard.

Let me do it for you. I guess you're not conducting any redirect anymore because you're satisfied.

I have another manifestation, Your Honor.

And you're contended with the testimony given by the witness you presented. What is your second manifestation?

Nais ko lamang pong liwanagin, Your Honor, kaugnay ng affidavit ni Arturo Lascañas. Ito po ay iprinisinta ng prosecution bilang bahagi ng testimony ng witness. Kagaya na po ng sinabi ng Presiding Officer nang tatlong ulit, pinayagang iprisinta ang affidavit ni Lascañas bilang bahagi ng testimony at bilang bahagi ng naging investigation ng Special Task Force ng National Bureau of Investigation. It was never claimed by the prosecution that this affidavit is notarized. Kailanman po ay hindi sinabi ng prosecution na notarized ang dokumentong ito. Ito po'y iprinisinta bilang bahagi lamang ng testimony ng witness at bilang bahagi din ng investigation ng NBI. To conclude, Your Honor—

Short rejoinder on that, Your Honor.

The lead prosecutor is not yet finished.

To conclude, Your Honor, the prosecution finds it unnecessary to conduct redirect examination.

Thank you, counsel. Duly noted. Do you still want a rejoinder, counsel?

Just a short rejoinder on the Lascañas issue.

Yes, counsel.

Again, Your Honor, according to the rules, an affidavit must be testified to and identified by the person or the author of that affidavit. And in this case, such was not done. So, an additional manifestation, Your Honor: considering that it is unsigned and unnotarized, the law considers it as a mere scrap of paper. That's just a manifestation.

Then, instead of letting this be an ongoing argument between both counsel, let the Chair state—

Your Honor, may I just correct the manifestation of—

No need, counsel. Let the Chair state for the fourth time: the affidavit of Lascañas was not offered as an authentic document executed by the affiant, only that it was part of the documents used by Director Matibag in his open-source investigation. As also clarified for the fifth time, if I will count it, by Senator-Judge Lacson, it was only part of the investigation of the NBI through what is called an open-source investigation. Again, to reiterate, not as proof of its authenticity and the truth of the contents contained in the affidavit or document purporting to be executed by Lascañas.

And that it is signed, Your Honor.

Let that be the end of it, counsel, if you may, and we can proceed to the interventions and interjections of Senator-Judges. Forgive my inadvertence earlier. The Chair will recognize, in the order that they indicated to the Chair, as pointed out by the Clerk of Court: Senator-Judge Raffy Tulfo, Senator-Judge Villanueva, Senator-Judge Pangilinan, Senator-Judge Aquino, and Senator-Judge Padilla as of now. Senator-Judge Raffy Tulfo is recognized for his interventions.

You may proceed sir when you are ready. You have two minutes.

Mr. Witness, kahapon naitanong ko sa inyo 'yung kaso ni Ronel Mas. Ngayon, tatanungin ko kayo: pamilyar ho ba kayo sa kaso nina Ronald Quiboyen, Maria Catherine Seron, and Joe Mark Ebkay?

Narinig ko po sila.

Ano po 'yung pagkakarinig mo sa kaso?

Sila po ay inaresto ng PNP-CIDG. 'Yung isa po, I think it's in Ozamiz, dahil mayroon siyang sinabi na patayin si dating Pangulong Duterte at nag-offer ng 100 million na reward. 'Yung naman pong Quiboyen, sa Boracay ata, na may offer din, if I'm not mistaken, 150 million po yata na reward.

So itong tatlo po, sa pagkakaalam n'yo, anong mga trabaho nito?

Yung isa po, construction worker, hindi ko po maalala yung isang.

'Yung isa ay unemployed college graduate. So the reason why I ask that: kasi tulad ni Ronell Mas, a teacher, at itong tatlo, mga ordinaryong mamamayan. I-compare natin doon sa ginawa ni VP Sara at saka ni Mayor Baste sa ating Pangulo—pagbabanta—almost the same 'yung nangyari. So kamay na bakal ang pinairal. Kapag mga ordinaryong mahihirap na mamamayan ang pinairalan ninyo diyan sa law enforcement, pero kapag makapangyarihan ang mga tao, you treat them with kid gloves. Why is that?

Respectfully po, Your Honor, unang-una, I cannot speak to the behavior of law enforcement at that time. But I agree with you na 'yung pag-aresto po sa kanila is warrantless arrest. That's the reason why na-dismiss po lahat ng kaso na iyon. 'Yung sa ngayon naman po, 'yung mga pangyayaring ito, we go to case build-up and file a case, katulad po nung nangyari kay Vice Presidente. Meron pong nakapending ngayon na kaso, at kung ito po ay mai-file sa court, that is the time that the court will issue a warrant of arrest. So meron po tayong prosesong sinusunod po.

Mali nga yung pagka-arresto. Actually, warrantless arrest yung nangyari noon. Pero meron bang nag-utos? Why it was done by the law enforcement people at that time? And what's the difference between the law enforcement back then and the law enforcement people now?

initingnan po lagi natin dito ay ang ebidensya, ang batasan ng proseso ang

dapat pong sundin.

Okay. I'll give

you an example.

Halimbawa, 'yung nangyari ngayon na pagbabanta sa ating Pangulo. Nangyari noon sa panahon ni Pangulong Duterte at nagbanta si Leni Robredo. Halimbawa lang—of course, Leni Robredo would not do that kasi I know wala sa karakter niya. Nagbanta si Leni Robredo kay Pangulong Duterte at matindi 'yung outburst niya at pagbabanta, at ganoon din ang ginawa ng kanyang anak. What would have happened? Sa tingin n'yo ba possible na may gagawing pag-aresto si PRD tulad ng ginawang pag-aresto doon sa teacher, construction worker, at unemployed college graduate?

Respectfully, it's calling for an opinion but siguro meron po akong pwedeng pagbasihan, base na rin po sa inyong sinasabi na construction worker, teacher ay inaresto dahil sa banta. Eh, posiblipo. May possibility na baka arestoyin po kaagad ang vicepresidente noon.

Thank you, Mr. Witness. Thank you, Senator Judge Rafi Tulfo. Senator Judge Villanueva may proceed with his interjection when he's ready. You have two minutes, sir.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, Mr. President. Just one or two quick questions to our dear witness. Your Honor, malaking bahagi po, Director Matibag, sa talakayan dito sa Korte at ng buong sambayanan whether or not natukoy na ba [unclear] tinutukoy ng Pangalawang Pangulo doon po sa kanyang video.

At binanggit n'yo po na may inaasahan po kayong development sa loob ng tatlo hanggang anim na buwan. Maaari po ba ninyong ipaliwanag, Director, sa pangkalahatan lamang po, kung ano po 'yung layunin ng mga natitira pang bahagi sa investigation po ninyo?

Just to clarify lang po, no: when you testified that the individual's identity will become clearer, does it mean, sir, that the Bureau is now focused on confirming or verifying the identity of a particular individual referred to by the respondent rather than determining whether such person exists in the first place? Kung baga po, 'yung tanong lamang po dito ay sinasagot po ay sino na 'yung kinontrata, rather than kung mayroon nga bang kinontrata?

vicepresidente na publicly it is an extrajudicial admission. Pagkatapos na

Ito: ‘Mayroon akong kinausap na assassin o mamamatay-tao para patayin ang Presidente at siya ay pumayag.’ So that is an admission na mayroon po. Pangalawa, bakit po natin tinutukoy at hinahanap? Dito na po pumapasok 'yung kailangan natin siyang makuha, hindi upang sabihin na kami talaga ay nag-usap ni Vice Presidente.

Kasi 'yun naman pong sinasabi ko nga, 'yung pag-uusap na may papatay at hindi naman nagawa, wala naman po tayong pinag-uusapang krimen doon. Pero ano po ba ang tinutugon namin sa paghahanap namin sa tao na iyon, sa individual na iyon? 'Yun na po 'yung sinasabi namin that we have to address: the issue of national security, the safety of the President, which is a primary mandate of the National Bureau of Investigation. So kapag ang banta po sa Pangulo ay seryoso tulad po nitong banta na ito, eh ito rin po ay magdudulot ng ligalig, kaguluhan, at disrespect po sa ating law and order. And that is the very purpose of the existence of the National Bureau of Investigation.

Yung bilanggit niyo na may mga persons of interest, so yun nga po, tinutumbok na po nito na nandun na po kayo dun sa sino ang kinontrata rather than meron nga bang kinontrata.

Tama po, Your Honor.

Thank you, Director Matibag. Napanggit niyo po kahapon din yung parte ng network ng respondent na tinatawag na Davao Death Squad. Batay po ito dun sa ebidensyang nakala po ninyo, sabi niyo sa NBI, at meron po kayong nakikitang impormasyon na nagsasabi ang... Gusto kong malaman kung meron po kayong nakikitang impormasyon na nagsasabi na aktibo pa rin po ba ito nung 2024, kaya naging part ito ng inyong assessment sa kapasidad ng respondent?

Sa aming investigation, lumalabas na mayroon pa pong mga existing. At katunayan, without naming names, ganito po: ilagay na natin sa konteksto na nagsimula po kami sa maraming pangalan and we've narrowed it down. Siguro ito na ang hinihintay ng marami rin, na finally ma-identify natin. We are narrowing it down already to less than 20 individuals, at may mga pangalan na po kami nito. Sa katunayan po, 'yung iba po rito, kausap na po namin 'yung kanilang mga pamilya o kakilala. So ganoon po 'yung proseso. That's why sinabi ko, baka in three to six months, we can finally identify kung sino 'yung personalidad na 'yun po.

Let me wind up, Mr. Presiding Officer.

In relation again to the Davao Death Squad that we were talking about, aktibo pa po ba sila noong 2004? Aktibo pa rin po ba sila sa kasalukuyan sa inyong nagpapatuloy na investigation? Tinatanong po natin ito, Ginong Pangulo, para malaman natin kung yung ginamit po ng National Bureau of Investigation ay base lamang doon sa historical background na binabanggit po kahapon o meron po na nakalap na Ang mga bagong impormasyon ang NBI, nahiwalay na impormasyon tungkol po dito.

Well, again, kanina po tinanong po ng kagalang-galang Senator Erwin Tulfo, we are not limiting it to the Double Dead Squad. Sabi ko nga po, meron pong mga aktibo pa sa serbisyo na men in uniforms at kasama rin po dito ang Vice President Sara Security Group po.

So, even those who are actively involved right now, I mean, men in uniform, is that what you're saying?

That is something that I can say because general naman, it will not go to the identity.

will be all, Mr. Presiding Officer. Thank you, Director Madiba. Salamat po.

Thank you, Senator Judge Villanueva. Senator Judge Aquino is recognized. You may proceed, sir, when you're ready. You have two minutes.

Maraming salamat, Mr. Presiding Officer. Isang tanong lang po kay Director Matibag.

Doon po sa AO11, nakalagay po doon yung mga membro ng task force, no? At yung isang membro po doon ay mula sa Transnational Crime Division.

Opo.

international nature itong posibleng pagpatay sa presidente? Meron bang... Ang mga

mga mga players na hindi po Pilipino sa inyong investigasyon?

'Yan po ay isa sa purpose talaga kung bakit namin isinama, para alamin kung sino po. Alam naman po natin, para patayin ang isang Presidente, hindi po isa o dalawang tao lang ang nag-uusap dito. You need 'yung kakayahan mo, 'yung capacity, doon po pumapasok. Kailangan ng pera, kailangan ng network, kailangan ng tao. So tinitingnan po natin ito lahat. Ngayon, 'yung binabanggit po ninyo, kasama po sa ating tinitingnan 'yan. Pero ang isa pong major na rason niyan, 'yung mga pagbibiyahe ng ating Pangulo—we have to also monitor it because the possibility of endangering the life of the President during his time outside of the country—nandoon din po 'yan dahil dito sa threat.

Okay. So kaklaruhin ko lang: 'yung pagkakaroon ng Transnational Crime Division, dahil 'yan sa mga biyahe ng Presidente, hindi dahil merong possible foreign intervention dito sa iniimbestigahan ninyong pagpaplano?

That is also an angle being considered, but that's not the main reason po. All right. Salamat. Salamat po.

Thank you, Senator Judge Aquino. Senator Judge Padilla is recognized. You may proceed, sir, when you're ready. You have two minutes.

Maraming salamat po aming ginuong Tagkapamahalang Hukom at sa atin pong ginuong Pangulo. Meron po akong katanungan para sa prosecution sa

akin pong mga kaibigan sa prosecution.

Napakahalaga po sa bawat pagdinig ay iyong nagsasabi ng katotohanan. Tama po ba?

Tama po.

Opo.

Pagka ang isang witness po ay naging halimbawa ng paiba-iba Ang sinasabi, ano pong tawag dito?

Di ba po kasinungalingan?

This is a hypothetical question, Your Honor. You are not referring to any particular witness?

Ah, sila scanners po. Yung inyo pong pinakitang apidabit.

Your Honor? Alam

niyo po, hindi pa po ako tapos, kaibigan.

Alam niyo po, napaka lungkot po para sa amin. Atty. Marinig na meron kayong ibinigay na apidabit na nabahiran dito po sa loob ng Senado, dito sa plenaryo ng Senado ay nabahiran ng matinding masasabi nating kasinungalingan sapagkat magkaiba ang kanyang sinabi. October 3, 2016, sinabi niya

Walang kinalaman ang Pangulong Rodrigo Roa Duterte. February 20,

March 6, naiba na ang istorya. Ang tanong ko po, ano ang tawag sa taong paiba-iba ang sinasabi? Di ba po sinungaling?

May I answer, Your Honor?

Opo, opo.

Kagaya po ng aking binigyang linaw kanina. At paulit-ulit na rin pong sinabi ng ating presiding officer.

Pakisagot na lang po kasi yun lang po ang tanong. Tama po ba o mali na tawaging sinungaling ang taong iba-iba ang sinasabi?

I'm sorry, Your Honor, but I need to qualify my answer.

Mr. presiding officer, isang isang simpleng tanong lang po.

The lead prosecutor may agree or disagree or state a different characterization. I can state a different characterization if I'm asked by the good senator-judge. You may disagree or agree with the statement of the Honorable Senator Judge Padilla. Feel free to say no or yes, counsel.

Ito po ay ipinrisinta sa Impeachment Court bilang bahagi ng testimonya ng witness.

Hindi pa rin po sinasagot ng lead prosecutor. It's not responsive to the question of Senator-Judge Padilla.

Allow me to, if the good Senator-Judge will allow the Presiding Officer: pwede ba nating sabihin, lead prosecutor, na ang testigong pabago-bago ang kanyang testimonya sa magkakaibang petsa o araw o panahon ay isang testigong hindi maaasahan?

Without particular reference to Arturo Lascañas, I agree with you, honorable presiding officer.

Posible nagsisinungaling siya sa isa, nagsasabi ng totoo sa isa, o nagsisinungaling sa isa, nagsasabi ng totoo sa isa? Hindi na natin malalaman yun. Tama po ba yun?

Without particular reference to Arturo Lascañas, I agree with you, Honorable Presiding Officer.

Maraming salamat

Maraming salamat po, aming ginoong tagapamahalang hukom.

Kasi po, katulad po ng sinabi ng ating Senator-Judge ‘10,000 hours,’ Panfilo Lacson, napakalinaw po ng sinabi niya.

At kami rin po dito, ako po mismo ay gumawa rin ng panukala na dapat iyong mga nagsisinungaling dito, iyong mga paiba-iba ng testimony na nagiging aming mga witness, ay dagdagan dapat ang sentensya ng perjury. Kailangan amendahan ang batas na iyan.

Ngayon, bilang pakiusap po sa prosecution, sana ay maiwasan natin ang pagbibigay ng witness na may kasong perjury. Hindi na po ito si Lascañas. Ang sinasabi ko po ay iyong dalawang mahal nating witness, si Atty. Jeremy Lotoc at si NBI Agent Calilung, na sa mga oras na ito ay may kasong hinaharap na perjury. Pwede po bang iwasan natin na may mga ganito tayong witness para ang—

nasasakdal po kasi dito ay ibinoto ng 32 million na tao.

Sana po aming mga mahal na kaibigan sa prosecution ay isipin nating mabuti bago po tayo magbigay ng mga witness na may perjury na kaso o nagkaroon po kami ng dahilan na

Nagkaroon po kami ng dahilan na gumawa ng amendment na itong perjury ay amendahan.

Pwede po ba iyon?

Your Honor, with all due respect, I would like to take exception to the question and manifestation of the Honorable Senator-Judge Robin Padilla. First of all, we were able to verify already that there are no cases pending against the prosecution witnesses. In addition, Your Honor, and only to respond to the concern of the Honorable Senator-Judge, ang conviction po ay hindi ground for disqualification unless it is final and unless it is punishable by more than one year and that the crime constitutes moral turpitude.

Alam ninyo po, napakaganda po ng inyong sagot. Sana hindi one-sided ang ating prosecution. Kasi alam ninyo, pag kayo ang pabor sa inyo—alam ninyo, bawal po ang ginagawa.

Kindly maintain order within the court.

Presiding Officer, bawal po ang ginagawa nitong nasa harap natin, nagko-comment.

Kindly maintain order in the court. The Sergeant-at-Arms, by authority of the Senate President, is directed to kindly maintain order in the court.

Hindi po sila allowed mag-ingay. Korte po ito.

Thank you. You may proceed, Senator-Judge Padilla. Who was speaking? Ako po. You may proceed, Senator-Judge Padilla.

I was interrupted.

With your apologies.

So, ibig niyo pong sabihin, yung mga senator judges dito ngayon na humaharap sa kaso na hindi po pinapayagan ng ombudsman at hindi pa rin sila guilty, ano pong ibig niyo sabihin?

Your Honor, with all due respect, ang question niyo po kanina ay kaugnay ng pagtistigo,

referring

to the witnesses of the prosecution, Your Honor.

Ang usapan po, are you all guilty or not guilty? Okay? So, tatanong na po ako ng bago. Pwede po ba?

May I be clarified, Your Honor, on your last question about the senator? You said are facing cases?

Alam niyo po, malinaw na po yung sinabi ko and wala po kayong karapatan magtanong ng Sen. Judge. I

think Sen. Judge Padilla was making a manifestation and not posing a question to the lead prosecutor in relation to our two colleagues. You may proceed, Sen. Judge Padilla. Maraming

salamat po, Gilong Tagapamahalang Hukom. Pwede na po ba tayong mag-advance ng katalungan?

Yes, Your Honor.

Apo.

Yung pong sinasabi ninyo, bakit niyo po nababanggit ang ICC dito?

Ano po ang kinalaman ng ICC dito sa ating pagdinig?

With all due respect, Honorable Senator-Judge Robin Padilla, kagaya po nang nabanggit ko na, at marahil panglima nang banggit ng Presiding Officer, nabanggit po ang ICC kaugnay ng affidavit ni Lascañas, na ipinrisinta po ng prosecution bilang bahagi lamang ng testimonya ng witness at bilang bahagi ng naging imbestigasyon ng Special Task Force ng NBI. Maraming salamat po.

Senator-Judge Padilla will please wind up. You can avail of a second round if you wish.

Opo, opo. Maraming salamat po. Sa ibig pong sabihin, malinaw na kanina sinabi natin na—

hindi siya... With the permission of Senator Judge and indulgence of Senator Judge Padilla, what is the pleasure of Senator Judge Rafi Tulfo?

Walang mic kay Senator Padilla. Bakit pag sa kabila pinapayagan sila 5-10 minutes, bakit pag sa amin, sa majority, kinakat agad ni-remind pagdating ng bago, pagdating ng 2 minutes? I think nakakalata na kami. So dapat pag sinabing two minutes, two minutes. Pag sa amin sa majority, pag two minutes, pinipindot ng pinipindot nito. Dalawa, tatlong beses. Totoo yan. Pero pag sa minority, umabot na ng five minutes, ten minutes. At meron akong record dyan. Pinapayagan. Why? Thank you.

Comments of Senator-Judge Raffy Tulfo are recognized. However, the Chair would like to point out that in the Impeachment Court, there is no majority nor minority. We are all Senator-Judges. And Senator Lacson earlier requested also additional time to finish his point, which the Chair allowed. That's why the Chair reminded Senator-Judge Padilla to wind up because his time already lapsed.

Kaya nga, Mr. Presiding Officer, I'm sorry, I do have a lot of respect in you. Yung sa akin lang, kahit na sino senador, kapag—

The Clerk of Court is instructed to kindly relay to the bell ringer to kindly be consistent in doing the reminder. Polite reminder to the senator judges with respect to the time allotted. Senator Judge

I take the comments of Senator Tulfo in order. I respect your opinion. But just to put on record, as you said, Senator Lacson a while ago asked for more time—binigay, walang bell 'yon. Yesterday, dalawang bell sa akin, dalawa o tatlo? Dalawa lang ang bilang ko. And maybe the solution is that after the first, isang bell na lang. Pero kasi from the start of the impeachment trial, we asked the Presiding Officer, at sabi mo nga, liberality, because then if not, if we can't ask questions, baka magkaroon ng motion or mas lalong tatagal. Maybe you've been doing it naman, but 'yun nga, just ask to wrap up. But konti— we all want to get back to work. There's so much that we want to do. At least, wala ngang majority-minority, but at least walang threat ng kaso sa majority. Kami, magsalita dito, parang may sword sa aming nakatutok. So konting pagbibigay din sa amin ng liberality sa pagtatanong. But in accordance with the rules, tama naman po 'yung sinabi ni Senator Tulfo.

The Presiding Officer shall take in advisement the points raised by Senator-Judge Raffy Tulfo as well as the points raised by Senator-Judge Alan. And in that spirit, kindly wind up, Senator-Judge Padilla.

Ginoong tagapamahalang hukom, nais lamang pong sagutin ang ating kaibigan na si Senator Raffy Tulfo. Sandali lang po, kaibigan, mas mahaba kasi iyong sagot din nung ating prosecution. Ako po ay nagtatanong lamang ng oo ba o hindi. Pasensya na po.

Kindly wind up, Sen. Judge Padilla, but you're gonna bail off the second round if there's one.

Tatalon na po ako. Dito na po ako sa aking kaibigan. Maraming salamat po, kaibigan. Sa akin pong kaibigan, kay Atty. Matibag, mahal na saksi.

Mabilis lang po ito. Ako po ay napunta sa PDP lamang dahil po sa inyo?

Tama po. Opo.

Kayo po ang kumumbinsi sa akin?

Tama po.

Campaign manager n'yo pa po.

Opo.

At masasabi po natin na isa kayo sa nagpa number one po sa akin?

Tama po. Sa lugar po namin number one po kayo. Opo.

Atty. Matibag, sumama po ako sa inyo dahil alam ko na isa po kayo sa arkitekto ng pagkapanalo ni President Rodrigo Roa Duterte. Tama po ba?

Hindi po, sapagkat noong 2016 ako po ay campaign manager ng Region IV-A ni Secretary Mar Roxas po.

Ayun. So hindi po kayo connected noong panahon na iyon kay Pangulong Rodrigo Roa Duterte?

Hindi po.

Opo. Kung kayo po ay nagtatrabaho sa mga iba't ibang politiko, kaya po ba ay matatawag na political analyst o political—ano pang tawag po doon—'yung mga nagsasagawa, nagpapatakbo ng politika ng bawat politiko?

Well, maaari pong matawag na tayo ay tumutulong sa ating pinaniniwalaan na kung sino po ang dapat manungkulan sa ating bayan.

Opo. Ibig pong sabihin, pwede po kayong gumawa ng isang kandidato at manalo?

Magkatulog lang po sapagkat ang paniwala ko po hindi naman po isang tao lalo na ako ang magpapanalo ng isang kandidato.

Opo. So ngayon po masasabi po natin na pwede po kayong magtrabaho bilang isang political operator?

Ano po bang konteksto ng political operator? Ang ibig po sabihin... Ako po ay nasasama siya isang political party noon so tumutulong po tayong maipanalo ang isang kandidato ng political party.

Ano po ba ang trabaho ng political operator sa Pilipinas? Pwede ding gumawa? Pwede ding sumira?

Well, ang political operator to be successful kailangan po yung kanyang sasamahan ay magtagumpay ang kanyang pong laban at advokasiya.

Okay. 'Yun lang po. Maraming salamat po, kaibigang attorney.

Thank you, Senator-Judge Padilla. The Senate President is recognized for his interjection.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Tutuloy ko lang po 'yung mga katanungan ng mga kasamahan natin kanina. Mr. Witness, balikan ko po 'yung persons of interest. Itong persons of interest, ito 'yung nakausap n'yong actual killer?

'Yung persons of interest po can be characterized na merong nakausap.

Pero 'yung kausap n'yo, ito ba 'yung actual na nakontrata?

Well, persons of interest 'yun nga po. Ang sinasabi nga po natin, ito 'yung maaaring makapagturo. Hindi pa po natin nakausap ito lahat. Ang sinasabi ko po kanina, doon sa atin pong mga nakilala, meron na pong mga pamilya na gustong makipag-usap sa atin at magbigay ng impormasyon. Katunayan, nakakausap na po.

So ito, hindi ito 'yung actual na nakontrata?

'Yun po 'yung dumadaan pa po sa proseso ng amin pong pag-iimbestiga.

Gusto ko lang, by process of elimination, 'yung nakausap n'yo is hindi pa actual na nakontrata?

Hindi pa po natin masiguro doon po sa natitirang numero kung ang isa doon ay siya talagang actual na nakontrata o grupo po.

'Yung iba, nasabi n'yo, may iba rin ba kayong nakakausap pa?

Tama po. 'Yung iba naman ay makakapagturo kung sino 'yung nakontrata.

Tama po iyon?

Tama.

At itong mga taong makakapagturo, ano po 'yung mga ebidensya na puwede ninyong sabihin na credible itong mga taong ito?

Doon na po pumapasok 'yung mga intelligence report po sa amin, using our tools, the human intel and the officer's intel.

Bigyan lang ninyo kami ng concrete example na ito ay credible, puwedeng paniwalaan na magtuturo. Just give us an example.

So yung ginagamit po namin dito na human intel ay yung mga dati na rin po namin in four months na nasa ground po na nakakakuha po ng mga intelligence na ipinapasa po sa amin.

So base to sa human intelligence. Human

intel po. Pero

pwede rin mangyayari na itong purse of interest wala rin kalalabasan.

Posible po yun. Nangyayari po yan sa mga kaso po na So

yung nasabi niyo kahapong three to six months. Pwede rin after six months, zero. Walang kalalabasan.

h dito po namin ibinabase na mukhang lalabas po ang positibong resulta po.

So, in other words, 'yung probability, mataas?

Mataas po.

Gano'ng kataas? Bigyan n'yo kami ng more or less lang, in your own opinion.

From the scale of 1 to 10, nandoon po tayo ngayon sa 6 to 7 po.

Six to seven na merong kalalabasan na magtuturong may nakontrata?

Tama po.

Babalikan ko lang 'yung statement n'yo na nakakausap n'yo parati, or na-mention n'yo 'yung Vice President Security Group.

Kasama po 'yun sa isinama natin na pag-aaral po, pag-iimbestiga.

Correct. Kasama ba sila sa persons of interest, itong Vice President Security Group? Kasi nabanggit n'yo ngayon, kasama kahapon, na madali silang tawagin, nandoon lahat. Kasama ba sila dito sa persons of interest ninyo? Kung puwede ninyong sabihin—I know you're investigating—kung puwede lang sabihin.

Actually, meron pong personalidad na kasama doon.

Merong kasama doon. But naiintindihan ko na itong VP security group is also members of the government.

Yun nga po yung sinasabi ko that there are, actually doon po sa aming nanarod down, there are men in uniform who is in active service.

Puwede rin palitan ng Executive at any given time. Tama?

Tama po.

So paano, kung pwede silang palitan, paano nagkakaroon, ba doon sila nagiging persons of interest na merong Potentially, manggaling sa kanila itong pagkakontrata.

'Yun po 'yung precisely the reason na ayaw po natin na 'yung term na tinatawag na masunog 'yung ating lead na kinukuha. Baka po makaapekto pag nagkaroon po ng mga sudden na galawan. So right now, 'yung tao po nating sinusundan, at para madali rin po sa aming pag-monitor and surveillance, mas maigi po na nakapirmis po.

Sige. Maraming salamat, Ginoong Testigo.

Salamat po.

Thank you, Mr. Senate President. Senator-Judge Pangilinan is recognized for his interjections; thereafter, Senator-Judge Go; thereafter, Senator-Judge Hontiveros. Senator-Judge Pangilinan, you have two minutes. You may proceed when you're ready, sir.

Maraming salamat, Mr. Presiding Officer. Ginoong witness, nabanggit ng ilang testigo bago sa inyo, si Atty. Lotoc, na in so many words, above his pay grade, 'yung usapin ng interagency coordination. At sabi pa niya, maaaring ang director mismo, former director or current director, ang makapagsasabi niyan. Nung sinabi ninyong may national security threat, nakipag-ugnayan ba ang NBI sa iba pang mga ahensya ng pamahalaan?

Meron po kaming tuloy-tuloy na ugnayan.

At sino-sino ang mga ahensya o alin dito sa mga ahensya ng pamalan ang nakipag-ugnayan kayo?

Actually po, sinasabi nga natin meron po kasing security cluster kung saan po natatalakay yung mga kailangan po pag-usapan. So sa ngayon po, Through the Office of the Executive Secretary, meron po akong mga pakikipag-usap dun po sa military units din po natin. If you will not mind, I will not mention the exact military

unit po. So there have been inter-agency coordination to assess and to address itong kinukonsideran ninyong national security threat?

Totoo po yan. Yes po.

Okay. Dun sa usapin ng Pag iimbesigan ninyo naman, nasabi ninyong may narinig kayong mga banta na panood ninyo, meron ba kayong na-monitor na nagbanta naman ang ating Pangulo bilang pag-retaliate doon sa nasabing banta ni Vice President?

Ibig sabihin po, banta ng Pangulo sa Vice President?

Yes. Meron ba kayong na-monitor?

Wala po.

Kung meron man, hypothetically, tama ba yun?

Well, kailangan pong imbestigahan din kung meron pong ganung bantang.

In other words, would you consider in a hypothetical situation, revenge as justified? If there is a threat to the President, he decides, he likewise publicly threatens whoever, not necessarily the Vice President, whoever.

Ito ay hindi tama sa pagkat hindi naman po ito isang justifying or exempting na circumstance pagka nangyari po yung pagbabanta. Lalong lalo na po kung matas na opisyal, hindi po pwedeng maging batayan ang kanyang paghihiganti para magbanta po.

So ang paghihiganti, self-defense ba yun?

Hindi po.

Hindi. In other words, hindi legal ang paghihiganti sa usapin ng kung ikaw ay tinakot o ikaw may banta laban sa'yo.

Or when is it allowed? When is self-defense a valid assertion to allow for non-liability for a crime?

Nakabalangkas po 'yan sa Revised Penal Code. Kaya lang, hindi ko po kabisado. Pero kung mayroon po talagang actual na malinaw na nangyayari na, at kailangan mong iligtas ang buhay, karangalan at property po ng ibang tao, at lalong-lalo na ng mga kamag-anak mo o kaibigan, eh doon po pumapasok 'yung self-defense na valid. May mga elemento po siya.

So, just to wrap up: ang banta ng Pangulo, hypothetically, ay hindi tama?

Hindi po tama. 'Yan po ay magva-violate, kung hindi man po sa batas na umiiral na Kodigo Penal, eh doon po sa Konstitusyon. Bilang isang Pangulo ka, mayroon ka pong katungkulan na igalang ang batas, igalang ang Konstitusyon, at maging parehas po sa ibang tao po.

Maraming salamat.

Thank you, Senator-Judge Pangilinan. For the information of Senator-Judge Lapid and those who might be interested, the name of the bell ringer is Annika, for easy reference in case there are future reminders or complaints.

Who is next? Senator Judge Goh is recognized. You may proceed, sir, when you're ready. And you have two minutes, sir.

Salamat, Mr. Presiding Officer. I just want to put it on record, given that the incident with the sheriff in July 2011 was discussed in detail during the cross-examination of the defense earlier, I just find it proper that I shed light on the matter without any bias, given that these are matters of fact and based on personal knowledge. Since nabanggit po at ipinakita po kahapon—

Huwag mo nang patakbuhin 'yung oras, hindi pa naman tanong iyon.

Kasama na, sir?

Since nabanggit at ipinakita po kahapon ang insidente noong July 2011 involving the Vice President, then-Mayor Sara Duterte, and the sheriff, I would like to examine the relevance and context of this incident in determining the pattern of behavior of the Vice President. May I ask the NBI Director: would you agree that determining the context of actions of individuals is important to have a fair and impartial investigation?

That is the historical behavior to establish a pattern of violence. Okay.

Are you aware of the context and reason why Dan May or Sara Duterte did that? And are you aware of the demolition involving 217 families who were facing eviction?

Tama po ang pagkakaalam ko po si Sheriff Abe ay daladala ang isang legal and valid order of demolition at gusto niyang ipatupad po yung demolition bilang pagganap po sa kanyang tungkulin po.

A simple search online would provide further details. Nagalit po si Denmael Zaranon dahil nakiusap siya sa sheriff na kung pwede bang i-postpone ng ilang oras at i-delay mo ng eviction ng 217 na families. At naalala ko noon na meron pong pulisiya si former Mayor Rodrigo Duterte na ayaw niya pong magpaalis ng mga informal settlers. Pag walang malapitan, walang malipatan po yung mga illegal settlers. Kawawa naman po itong mga to na minadali silang paalisin. Is it correct that Davao City was then, sabi ko nga kanina no, it was correct that Davao City was then dealing With the aftermath of a flash flood, then Mayor Sara Duterte had come from attending to affected residents before proceeding. Alam niyo ba ito?

Well, I was informed po kanina nung sinasabi yan.

Alam niyo bang 31 po yung namatay nung panahon yun? Yun po, nalaman ko po kanina. Actually, nandun po ako nung nangyari po yung insidente.

At After two days, bumisita rin po si former Vice President Jojo Binay kasama ang ibang

July 1, may schedule po 'yung sheriff na paalisin 'yung mga informal settlers na wala pang malilipatan. Ang naaalala ko lang po, nakiusap si then Mayor Sara na kung puwedeng ipagpaliban muna ng ilang oras o araw 'yung pag-demolish po sa mga illegal or informal settlers.

Actually, sa totoo lamang po, since we are here for the search for the truth and justice, I believe it is incumbent upon me to put on record my recollection of what happened. 'Yun po 'yung naaalala ko. Sabi ko nga, may policy po 'yung siyudad noon: if the informal settlers can't be transferred, don't let them leave. Kawawa 'yung ating mga kababayan na hindi marelocate. That's the context. It is important to have a fair assessment of the incident. Magkakaiba naman po 'yung nangyari noong 2011 sa mga pangyayaring iniimbestigahan ninyo po dito. In fact, not just this incident, in our search for the truth, importanteng alamin natin ang dahilan at konteksto ng mga pangyayari upang maging patas, objective, at makatarungan ang ating pagsusuri. 'Yun lamang po. Ubos na 'yung oras ko. Last two minutes na po.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Officer, salamat po. Tapos na ba 'yung oras ko?

Sabi ni Annika tapos na daw.

Pagtabla yun sa basketball po. Pagtabla sa last two minutes. May

extension na five minutes po. Thank you. Second round.

Thank you, Sen. Judge Goh. Sen. Judge Ontiveros is recognized. You may proceed ma'am when you're ready. You have two minutes as well.

Salamat, Mr. Presiding Officer. Mr. Witness, nabanggit po kanina ang political speech. Pag-express ng dissent sa gobyerno, bilang abogado at public servant, kailan po sa tingin ninyo lumalampas sa kritisismo at nagiging national security concern?

Ang isa pong kritisismo ay lumalagpas na sa yung kalayamagsalita kung meron na po tayong nalalagpasan at nababailate na batas at lalong-lalo na po kung ito ay maghahantong sa kaguluhan. At makukumpormiso po ang ating national security. If our national security will be under attack, walaki po itong problema.

So kung may kritisismo pero meron din pong potensyal na lumikha ng kaguluhan o gawing insecure ang national security. Dumalampas na po sa kritisismo. Nagiging concern of national security ayon sa tingin po ninyo.

Tama po. Binabantayan na po natin yan ng masusi at mas malapit na pagbabantay.

Alright. Salamat po. Ibang paksa naman po, Mr. Witness. Sa lahat po ba ng sitwasyon kung saan nag-iba ang testimonya ng isang witness?

Masasabi po bang wala nang katotohanan yung pahayag nila?

Ang testimonya po na paiba-iba ay dyan po pumapasok yung intervention ng Korte na nakikinig kung anong testimonya ang dapat pakinggan at titignan po dyan ano ba ang circumstances, bakit may ganong testimonya, bakit nagbago at eventually kung ano po yung talagang nilagdaan at kinilala ay importante po yan.

Speaking of the circumstances, mayroon po bang mga valid reasons o mayroon po bang mga dahilan kung bakit nag-iiba ang testimonya, sa karanasan at observation ninyo?

Marami po. Maaari pong may pagbabanta sa buhay ng tumitistigo o sa kanyang pamilya o sa kanyang katayuan. Maaari din po na dahil may konsiderasyong pinansyal ay puwedeng magbago ang testimonya.

Meron pa po siguro na tinitingnan din kung napasasakripisyo ang kanyang pagkatao, hindi naman yung banta sa buhay niya, kundi sa pagkakakulong or kung ano man, or meron pong taong gusto pong pagbigyan sa kanyang pagtistigong.

So, bagamat siyempre naman po naghihigpit ang Korte sa mga usapin ng katotohanan at standards ng katotohanan, ay hindi po masasabi sa lahat ng pagkakataon na wala nang katotohanan ang isang testimonya, o 'yun na hindi na totoo ang isang testimonya o bahagi ng isang testimonya.

Tamo po yan, at lalong-lalo na kung may iba pong ebidensya, whether documentary or testimonial evidence din, eh pwede pong isa-ibangga doon sa testimonyang sinabi para ma-attain po at makita kung kailangang tanggapin o paniwalaan ng testimonyang sinasabi po ng isang tao.

At doon po pumapasok yung wisdom ng Korte, timbangin ang lahat at subukan pa rin gabaya ng buong proseso na buwiin yung buong kwento at totoong kwento mula sa

Tama po yun, yung wisdom and of course guided po by the law, the letters and the spirit of the law po. Of course.

Huling tanong na lamang po, Mr. Witness. Sundan ko yung tanong kanina ni Senate President tungkol sa persons of interest. At ang punto po ninyo, tama po ba na pwedeng persons of interest ang kanyang mga security ni Vice President? Wrapping up, Mr. Presiding Officer, ilan po sa pagkakaalam niyo ang security compliment ni Vice President?

Hindi ko po ko sigurado sa exactong numero but what I've seen from the news before it's 750 and it's reduced to 300 plus po.

300 plus ang security complement ni Vice President. Iyon po ba ay kinonsidera ng NBI sa pag-characterize ng mga utterances ni VP bilang lampas sa kritisismo at papunta na or ganap na na concern sa national security? Ibabalik ko po ron sa

ginamit namin po na five standards na ginagamit po ng Secret Service ng Amerika in National Threat Assessment, yung pun tinatawag na Protective Intelligence Threat Assessment methodology po. Ibabalik ko po doon, isa po yan sa tinitingnan. Doon po pumapasok yan sa capacity o kapasidad ng tao po na nagsalita ng pagbabanta.

Okay. So 'yung fact na may higit tatlong daang security complement ay iniugnay n'yo doon sa isang standard ng capacity?

Tama po.

All right. Salamat po, Mr. Witness. Salamat, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Thank you, Senator-Judge Hontiveros. If there are no other Senator-Judges, the Chair will have a brief interjection. Senator-Judge Pia Cayetano is recognized for her interjection.

You may proceed, ma'am, when you're ready. You have two minutes. I believe this is a continuation of the lady's interjection yesterday.