July 21, 2026

After quorum and appearances, the prosecution called NBI Director Melvin Matibag as its last witness for Article IV; he was placed under oath.

The court allowed the prosecution to proceed with task-force testimony while recording the defense's continuing objection and requiring the witness, rather than counsel, to characterize the alleged statements.

Direct examination covered the NBI's ongoing task-force inquiry, videos shown in court, and documents that Matibag said the task force had considered.

After a recess, the defense began cross-examination, including questions about the earlier NBI inquiry, subpoenas, and documents the witness had not personally executed or issued.

The court granted the defense a continuance, heard senator-judge interventions, and adjourned until July 22 for continued cross-examination and any redirect, recross, and further questions.

The court permitted the task-force testimony subject to the defense's continuing objection; it described the alleged threat as a proposition the prosecution would try to prove, not as a court conclusion.

The court denied the defense request to strike Matibag's answer about the task force's observations, leaving its weight for the senator-judges' appreciation.

On the Lascañas statement, the court allowed Matibag to say it had passed through or was used in the NBI inquiry, but not to establish the truth of its allegations through his testimony.

The court allowed the witness to use his own copy of a document without prejudice to later comparison with a certified true copy and to defense cross-examination about differences.

The court sustained an objection to a question calling for a legal conclusion while the NBI inquiry remained ongoing, directing the prosecution to rephrase.

Joel Villanueva asked how an ongoing NBI inquiry relates to impeachment; he also distinguished the court's constitutional accountability function from a criminal determination.

Raffy Tulfo compared the handling of the Ronell Mas case with the NBI's treatment of statements attributed to the Vice President; Matibag said he could not speak for the earlier NBI investigation and described procedural lapses in the earlier arrest.

Risa Hontiveros asked about Princess Maui and Oplan Romanov, including whether the NBI had actionable intelligence concerning threats to the President and Vice President.

Sherwin Gatchalian pressed Matibag on the absence of a specifically identified alleged contact, the meaning of persons of interest, and the projected timetable; Matibag said the inquiry was continuing and gave an expected three-to-six-month estimate for clearer data.

Bam Aquino asked for Matibag's professional assessment of the alleged contact; Matibag answered from his reading of the Vice President's statement, not from a completed identification of a person.

Alan Peter Cayetano questioned how the task force selected and contextualized portions of the Vice President's statement and challenged Matibag's interpretation of the NBI's statutory investigative authority.

Pia Cayetano raised Rule 132 authentication concerns about the Lascañas document and stated that the prosecution had not presented Lascañas as its witness in this proceeding.

Migz Zubiri sought clarification on whether the recalled subpoenas meant the related witnesses would not be taken up the next day; the chair said the court expected to address that article on a later date.

The prosecution said the task force and related investigation were relevant to Article IV because they addressed what it called a possible broader threat, and it sought to have Matibag explain the task force's work.

The prosecution presented videos of Sebastian Duterte and the Vice President as material it said the task force compared in its inquiry.

The prosecution argued that the Lascañas document was being used to show what the task force considered, rather than to prove the truth of its contents.

The prosecution opposed the defense request for a continuance, saying it wanted cross-examination completed that day and, if allowed, to proceed to redirect.

The defense made a continuing relevance and due-process objection to the task-force testimony, arguing that the task force and related allegations were outside the impeachment articles.

The defense challenged Matibag's ability to testify to the contents of the Lascañas statement, arguing he had not executed it and lacked personal knowledge; it also raised authentication and document-copy concerns.

On cross, the defense emphasized that Matibag became NBI Director after the earlier inquiry and did not personally participate in its subpoenas, interviews, or execution of related affidavits.

The defense sought a continuance after cross-examination had begun and requested copies of the Lascañas material and AO No. 11 for use in continuing the examination.

Matibag testified as NBI Director and described an Administrative Order creating a task force; his account of the earlier investigation was based on NBI records rather than his personal participation.

Matibag said the task force was still active, had persons of interest, and had not publicly identified a specific alleged contact; he explained that disclosure could compromise the inquiry and informants.

Videos and an affidavit of authentication were displayed or identified during direct examination, but their presentation did not itself decide what weight the court would give them.

The Lascañas statement became a central evidentiary dispute: the witness described it as material considered by the NBI, while the court restricted the use of his testimony about its contents.

The court allowed use of Matibag's copy of a document for confirmation while preserving later comparison with a certified true copy and any defense challenge to differences.

The chair said the Lascañas document could be considered only "not as to the truth and the contents of the affidavit itself" through the witness's testimony.

Asked when the task force would identify the alleged contact, Matibag said, "I cannot give the exact time," then offered an expected three-to-six-month timeframe for clearer data.

The NBI inquiry remained ongoing; Matibag did not identify a specific alleged contact or give a firm completion date.

The court did not decide the truth of the allegations in the Lascañas statement through Matibag's testimony, and its authentication and evidentiary treatment remained contested.

Matibag's cross-examination was not completed, and redirect, recross, and additional senator-judge interventions were reserved for the following sitting.

The chair deferred action on requested subpoenas for Marivic Pareja, Roderick Wamil, and Aileen May Del Campo, and temporarily recalled subpoenas for Violeta Constantino and Nanita Camposano.