July 15, 2026

Before the scheduled oral arguments, Robin Padilla, Alan Peter Cayetano, and Pia Cayetano raised concerns that an announced NBI inquiry into the 2019 Southeast Asian Games could pressure senator-judges. At Pia Cayetano's request, the court played a clip of NBI Director Melvin Matibag discussing the inquiry; she asked that the matter be considered when he appeared the following week.

The main proceeding concerned two pending prosecution motions: one for banking and AMLC records and another for BIR records. The court gave the prosecution and defense equal time for argument and rebuttal.

Chel Diokno argued for the prosecution, Michael Poa responded for the defense, and each side then addressed the other's legal arguments in rebuttal and surrebuttal.

After a lengthy caucus, the presiding officer announced that the senator-judges needed more time to read the parties' memoranda and study the two motions. The court deferred a decision until July 20, when senator-judges could question both sides.

The prosecution then withdrew five planned Article 4 witnesses and said Melvin Matibag would be its last witness on threats before it moved to confidential-fund witnesses.

On a separate request concerning the upcoming confidential-fund presentation, the court granted subpoenas for Marivic Pareja, former LandBank managers Violeta Constantino and Nenita Camposano, and LandBank president Lynette Ortiz.

The court adjourned the trial until 2 p.m. on July 20, 2026.

The Chair granted Sen. Pia S. Cayetano's motion to play the short NBI video and directed the technical staff to play it so the court could proceed to the scheduled oral arguments.

Subject to caucus agreements, the Chair said the court would vote on the two pending subpoena motions as filed—bank/AMLC records and BIR records—rather than separately voting on each sub-issue.

The Chair granted the listed ad testificandum and duces tecum subpoenas and directed their preparation and service.

The Chair ordered both parties to confine future witness-withdrawal manifestations to the withdrawal and not add an evidentiary explanation.

Sen. Robinhood "Robin" Padilla questioned whether the detention of Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta, Ombudsman communications to him and Alan Peter Cayetano, and the announced SEA Games inquiry after Cayetano questioned the NBI director were coincidence or a pattern of pressure on the court. He asked whether senator-judges should fear those developments and stressed that the impeachment court had independent constitutional authority to conduct the trial.

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano said the announced SEA Games inquiry could chill senator-judges; he denied that its references to a no-bid contract and congressional insertion implicated him, later clarified that the cauldron was privately funded, and did not oppose an investigation. On the subpoena motions, he urged separate treatment of the distinct record, account-holder, currency, and company issues; sought adequate rebuttal time and, before caucus, asked whether the parties could be questioned on those issues and whether witnesses would appear Monday. He also supported limiting withdrawal manifestations because explanations could put untested assertions before the court without a witness or opportunity to object, and said the parties could explain withdrawals in press briefings.

Sen. Pia S. Cayetano said the reported SEA Games inquiry, raised just before NBI Director Melvin Matibag was to appear as a witness, troubled her as possible pressure on senator-judges and moved to play the video. After viewing it, she questioned why Matibag had described a "big case" and whether the statement was meant to distract or intimidate the court before his appearance; she agreed the matter could be taken up on Monday. Later, she supported cautioning both sides that counsel should not supply conclusions or observations in place of testimony from an absent witness.

Sen. Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan supported playing the NBI video but said his initial view was to take the matter up when NBI Director Melvin Matibag appeared Monday, and he yielded to the ruling to play it immediately. Before caucus, he asked the court to keep its agreement to caucus after the oral arguments. On witness withdrawals, he initially favored giving the defense a matching opportunity to explain its withdrawals, noting that impeachment need not strictly apply technical evidence rules, but yielded to the ruling barring those explanations.

Sen. Paolo Benigno "Bam" Aquino IV sought clarification on whether the parties would present their cases article by article or whether the prosecution would finish all its articles before the defense began. The Chair said each side would first present its evidence in chief on all articles, followed by formal offers and final arguments, before the court decided the articles individually.

The prosecution asked for bank records, tax records, and AMLC reports concerning Duterte and her husband, Manases Carpio, saying the material related to Article 2 allegations of unexplained wealth, undeclared assets, and prohibited business participation while she was Vice President.

Diokno argued that the Constitution gives the Impeachment Court broad authority to issue subpoenas and that neither the Bank Secrecy Law nor the Data Privacy Act barred the requested production.

The prosecution characterized Duterte's financial activity from 2007 through 2013, as described in an AMLC report submitted to the House committee, as relevant to whether she was fit to remain Vice President. This was the prosecution's argument about the report, not a finding by the impeachment court.

Diokno invoked the Corona impeachment and Supreme Court language about the Legislature's discretion over impeachable offenses to argue that pre-vice-presidential records could be examined and that the court itself should decide relevance.

In rebuttal, Diokno argued that issuing subpoenas would not itself deny due process because the defense could object when particular documents were later identified and offered. He also cited Republic v. Rabusa and disputed the defense's interpretation of the confidentiality statutes.

Poa agreed that the court had subpoena power but argued that a valid subpoena still had to be definite and relevant. He characterized an oppressive or unreasonable request made in the hope of uncovering incriminating material as a fishing expedition.

The defense argued that the original House complaints contained no financial transaction record or SALN supporting the unexplained-wealth accusation and that the later effort to obtain records was an attempt to find proof after making the allegation.

Citing Duterte v. House of Representatives, Poa argued that conduct from 2007, when Duterte was not yet in an impeachable office, fell outside the proper scope of the trial and made the nearly two-decade request overbroad.

The defense maintained that AMLC and tax-disclosure statutes did not contain an impeachment exception, and that the Bank Secrecy Law's impeachment exception did not eliminate due process or automatically extend to the bank records of Duterte's spouse.

In surrebuttal, Poa argued that due process applied at every stage, that a subpoena should not be used to suspend statutory protections, and that the Corona impeachment predated the Supreme Court guidance on which the defense relied.

No witness testified on the two main financial-record motions during this session; the central record consisted of counsel's oral arguments about whether the requested records should be produced.

The court played a clip in which NBI Director Matibag discussed a newly received inquiry concerning facilities used for the Southeast Asian Games. The reviewed transcript marks several words in the clip as unclear, and the court did not make a finding on the claims in the clip.

Diokno referred to an AMLC report already submitted to the House Committee on Justice and recited transaction totals from it. The session record contains counsel's characterization of that report; the underlying requested records were not produced or admitted during this hearing.

Poa referred to the Saballa and Cabrera complaints, marked AMLC material, and the statutes governing financial and tax information to challenge the foundation, scope, and legality of the requested production. These references were defense arguments, not evidentiary findings.

For the next phase of Article 4, the prosecution said Matibag would be its final threats witness after withdrawing five others. It then identified Pareja and LandBank personnel as its first intended confidential-fund witnesses.

Opening for the prosecution, Diokno asked, "Bubuksan ba natin ang pinto ng katotohanan? O haharangin ito?"

Poa framed the defense's due-process position this way: "when a subpoena becomes oppressive, when it is unreasonable, and when it is merely issued for the very purpose that there is a hope that somewhere, somehow, something incriminating will come out, it ceases to be an instrument of justice."

Poa concluded his first argument: "No one is above the law. But in the same manner, no one must fall below or be outside the protection of the law."

Diokno closed his rebuttal: "In this proceeding, hindi po confidential ang katotohanan."

The court had not granted or denied the prosecution's motions for banking, AMLC, and BIR records when the session ended. It scheduled the decision process and further questions for July 20.

The senator-judges still had to resolve sub-issues concerning the types of records, the accounts of Duterte and her spouse, definiteness, relevance, confidentiality, and whether pre-vice-presidential activity fell within the proper scope of Article 2.

The NBI Director's announced Southeast Asian Games inquiry remained a concern raised by senator-judges, not a contempt finding or ruling. Pia Cayetano proposed returning to it when Matibag appeared the following week.

Article 4 testimony by Matibag, confidential-fund witnesses, formal offers of evidence, final arguments, and decisions by article remained ahead in the trial sequence.