IMPEACHMENT WATCH: Article 4 — Death threats, inciting to sedition and other high crimes

On July 6, 2026, the Senate convened as an impeachment court to hear the case against Vice President Sara Duterte, making her the first Philippine vice president to stand trial in an impeachment proceeding.

The first three weeks were spent on organizational matters, deciding on prosecution’s request to subpoena financial documents, and trying Article 4 of the impeachment complaint, which encompasses alleged grave threats to the President, the First Lady and the former Speaker of the House, inciting to sedition, and other high crimes.

Vice President Duterte did not personally attend the opening session and instead appeared through her legal counsels.

The prosecution characterized Article 4 as one involving betrayal of public trust, arguing that the VP committed acts forming a consistent pattern of violence and abuse of power.

The defense, on the other hand, maintained that the context of the utterances should be considered to negate the charge of grave threats, and that the impeachment was politically motivated and designed to eliminate one of the country's strongest political figures.

Prosecution presents NBI witnesses

The prosecution presented three National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) officials. NBI Senior Agent John Mark Calilung was presented to authenticate the video recordings in which the VP allegedly stated that she had ordered the killing of the President, the First Lady, and the former Speaker should she be killed, and that it was “no joke’.

Calilung testified as to how the digital evidence was collected, preserved and examined to be an authentic recording of the public utterances.

Too much time was spent proving and questioning the expertise and training of Calilung, including various objections related to his testimony.

This process was seen as redundant since millions have actually watched the video clips and there should not be any doubts as to the existence of such video recordings.

Hence, many observers began to question the strategy of the defense in focusing on technicalities and procedures, like the sufficiency of trainings of the witness, the discrepancies or minor errors in some of the documents presented, and the rules of court on objections, rather than their true defense on the matter.

In the end, even the defense had impliedly agreed as to the genuineness of said tapes, as they also used certain portions of the recording to justify the utterances of the VP. The defense had tried to focus on the context of the VP's public statements and the reasons why such statements did not constitute grave threats.

The second NBI witness Atty Jeremy Lotoc, testified as to the conduct of investigation and the basis for recommending the filing of criminal charges against the VP in the Department of Justice.

During cross-examinations, the defense highlighted some discrepancies in the documents presented, incorrect docket numbers, and typo and clerical errors, raising the possibility that the investigation was not meticulously done.

The last NBI witness was Director Melvin Matibag, the NBI head, who testified as to the investigation made on the grave threats and the continuing investigation to find out the identity of the killer allegedly contracted by the VP.

Matibag was questioned on his lack of personal knowledge on the circumstances of the NBI investigation, since he was appointed only to the NBI post in February 2026.

During the trial, the impeachment court was frequently called upon to resolve procedural objections raised by both sides. Numerous disputes arose regarding the admissibility of documentary and testimonial evidence, the scope of examination of witnesses, and the proper interpretation of the Senate's impeachment rules.

Senator-judges take to the podium

The defense also questioned the fairness of the agency in not pursuing alleged similar threats against the life of the Vice President. Throughout the proceedings, Senator-judges rose to ask questions from the lawyers or the witnesses, or make manifestations regarding certain issues.

Some Senator-judges, particularly those belonging to the minority, have been criticized by analysts as favoring VP Sara’s defense. Sen. Robin Padilla even asked the prosecution not to be “one-sided” and not to present witnesses that have been accused of perjury, in the impeachment trial of VP Sara who was elected by 32 million voters, echoing the line of the defense lawyers.

Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero, had been praised for being decisive in ruling on numerous objections and giving leeway to both parties in the presentation of evidence. Both the prosecution and defense teams had tried to vigorously advance their respective positions.

Prosecution successfully have evidence admitted

The prosecution had successfully placed on record their evidence regarding Article 4, including the video recordings of the alleged threats, and the official investigations conducted by the NBI, including a mere copy of a former Duterte follower’s affidavit which narrated, among others, alleged violent tendencies of the VP.

This was seen as a major victory for the prosecution, since the defense was not able to prevent the presentation of said evidence. Another major victory for the prosecution, although not related to Article 4, was the Senate court’s decision to allow the subpoenas of VP Sara’s bank, tax and other financial records, to support the prosecution’s charge of unexplained wealth.

The defense, including some Senator-judges, tried to resist the issuance of the subpoenas on the ground of violation of due process and fishing expedition. However, citing legal precedents, laws and the Constitutional power of the Senate court, the presiding officer ruled to issue the subpoenas, subject to certain qualifications.

At least five senator judges manifested their intention to file their objections through written manifestations. This ruling was seen to be a victory for transparency and truth, and could very well make or unmake the presentation of the remaining articles of impeachment.

Atty. Nena Radoc is a CPA-Lawyer-MBA with over 40 years of management experience in local and multinational companies. 

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the author are her own and do not in any way reflect those of Paraluman News.