By Brian Campued and Dean Aubrey Caratiquet
On Tuesday, July 21, the House prosecution panel presented National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Atty. Melvin Matibag as its last witness in hearing Article IV (grave threats) of the Articles of Impeachment, as he underwent a direct examination by Lead Prosecutor Rep. Gerville Luistro and a cross-examination by defense counsel Atty. Mark Vinluan.
On Wednesday, July 22, the NBI chief took the witness stand once again for the continuation of the defense team’s cross-examination, followed by the prosecution’s redirect examination and clarificatory inquiries from the senator-judges.
Here are the highlights of today’s trial:
- Entering her continuing objection to counsel for the respondent Atty. Mark Vinluan’s use of the term “mini trial” to refer to the hearings conducted by the House justice committee in relation to the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte, Lead Prosecutor Rep. Luistro maintained that it was a clarificatory hearing that the panel conducted not a mini trial.
Luistro: “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 [with] the House rules on impeachment and even consistent [with] the provisions of Article XI of the Constitution.”
- Counsel for the respondent Atty. Mark Vinluan pressed NBI Director Matibag on the issuance of his Administrative Order No. 11 on April 16, 2026, which created a special task force to investigate threats on the life of President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr.
Vinluan: “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?
Matibag: “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 a threat to public safety.”
Vinluan then asked Matibag if a special task force was created to investigate the alleged threats to the life of the Vice President. Matibag said there was none.
- Atty. Vinluan noted that there was no subpoena issued against VP Duterte since Matibag assumed office on Feb. 20, 2026, while there were two subpoenas issued to her during the tenure of former NBI director Jaime Santiago.
Matibag: “We never subpoenaed because we noticed that every time proper subpoenas were issued to the Vice President, she would never attend a subpoena.”
When asked by the defense on what specific crime an NBI subpoena would cite, Matibag said a crime is committed only when the plan to kill is executed—but clarified that one of the mandates of the NBI is to protect national security, referring to the alleged threats to the life of President Marcos Jr.
Matibag: “We are also mandated to issue a subpoena or an investigation to do so. In this case, we cannot issue a subpoena, we can issue an invitation for those persons of interest.”
Vinluan: “This is not under the jurisdiction of the NBI, correct?”
Matibag: “It is within the power of the NBI to protect the national interest and the national security. And as mentioned, there is a continuing threat to the President, and under Section G, Section 5 of Republic Act 10867, it is one of the primary duty of the NBI to protect the security of the President.”
Vinluan: “Can the subpoena indicate betrayal of public trust?”
Matibag: “We cannot put that because that is not a subject of a case under the Revised Penal Code for the crime. The betrayal of public trust is the very well subject of the Impeachment Court.”
- Atty. Vinluan then asked Dir. Matibag if they will file another impeachment complaint once the NBI special task force reaches their findings.
Matibag: “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 the public trust. Why? Because the oath of office of the [vice] president, sabi niya, she will execute the law and do justice to every man. 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 d’yan.”
- Regarding Matibag’s earlier revelation that they are investigating the “persons of interest” whom VP Duterte allegedly contracted to “kill” the President, Atty. Vinluan asked Dir. Matibag if the NBI will comply if ever the Senate Impeachment Court issues a subpoena for its “confidential records” of investigation.
Matibag: “Pag-aaralan po natin. Kung naaayon sa batas ay puwede nating ipagbigay alam po sa Impeachment Court.”
Quoting House Prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno’s earlier statement from Day 6 of the impeachment trial, Vinluan asked Matibag, “Don’t you believe that ‘Ang katotohanan ay hindi confidential?'”
Matibag: “Meron po tayong proseso na sinusunod. Kung ito man ay totoo at ito ay magva-violate po sa batas, baka hindi po yata natin dapat itong gawin.”
- Atty. Vinluan cited Matibag’s statement on Tuesday’s trial about the threats to the President having a “kinetic force” that incites public unrest.
Matibag noted several instances of violent acts that may form part of the “kinetic force”, such as a participant saying “Barilin na yan” during a PBBM event in Nueva Ecija, which was caught on livestream.
Matibag: “Depende po kung anong event. Kaya nga po ang ginagawa ng NBI ay atin pong sinusuri ang lahat ng pangyayari. Kahapon po inilatag namin yung limang batayan namin para magkaroon tayo ng malinaw na threat assessment sa lahat ng pangyayari.
We have to qualify, we have to treat each event independently and apply the five-factor test that we are applying sa mga pangyayari.”
- Atty. Vinluan then asked Matibag whether political speech is constitutionally protected, citing the RAGE Coalition event at Club Filipino on April 12, 2026, where Davao City Mayor Baste Duterte expressed his “dissent to the government.”
Matibag: “The freedom of expression has limitations also. Kung ito po ay nagba-violate na ng batas at nakakasama na sa ating bayan, ay hindi na po ito kasama na sa freedom of expression.”
Vinluan then asked Matibag if Mayor Duterte’s remarks during the RAGE Coalition rally constituted destabilization. The NBI chief clarified that based on their five-point threat assessment, the statements made by Mayor Duterte was not a destabilization but a threat to the safety of the President and to national security.
- Atty. Vinluan presented two news articles citing Palace Press Officer Claire Castro and VP Duterte refuting the existence of alleged destabilization plots against the Marcos Jr. administration.
According to Matibag, the entire context should be scrutinized for the first article because different things are discussed under the security cluster. For VP Duterte’s statement, Matibag said the vice president herself should be the one to answer about her “state of mind.”
- Senator-judge Panfilo Lacson interjected during the cross-examination, correcting an assertion by the defense that he filed perjury raps against retired police officer and self-confessed Davao Death Squad member Arturo Lascañas.
Lacson said while he chaired the Senate committee on public order that investigated extrajudicial killings, the panel only recommended, in its committee report, amending the Revised Penal Code to increase the penalty for perjury.
- Atty. Vinluan pressed Matibag regarding Lascañas’ affidavit, asking if the NBI issued a subpoena to verify the content of the document.
Matibag explained that they were not able to subpoena Lascañas because he is “nowhere to be found” and instead examined his affidavit using the five factors he earlier mentioned to determine whether his statements were deemed believable.
Vinluan: “So are you saying that pinapaniwalaan niyo na ngayon without issuing a subpoena to Lascañas and verifying it with him?”
Matibag: “Hindi po nag-isyu ng subpoena kay Lascañas, pero meron pong naging verification process.”
Vinluan: “But not with Lascañas, who is the author of that document?”
Matibag: “Asked and answered po, your honor.”
- A part of VP Duterte’s Oct. 18, 2024, press conference is again presented where she said she imagined herself cutting the head of the President. Atty. Vinluan asked Matibag if Duterte did not say her statement in jest.
According to Matibag, he cannot go into the state of mind of the Vice President.
Vinluan: “Didn’t you take the Vice President’s statement out of context?”
Matibag: “Mahirap po para sa aming law enforcement na yung ganyang mga statement ay aming babaliwalain… Sa amin po sa law enforcement, we have to give credence to that and i-process po namin.”
- Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo asked Matibag on how the NBI identified the “persons of interest” regarding the alleged individual contracted by VP Duterte.
According to Matibag, their investigations rely on several intelligence reports, including open-source intel, human intel, and monitoring tools to trim down the individuals possibly linked to the case.
- Senator-judge Lacson raised a possible “double standard” in how the NBI treated the supposed threats made by the Vice President and those of the statements made by Mayor Duterte against President Marcos Jr.
Lacson: “Bakit inimbestigahan niyo yung kay Vice President Sara at nai-refer niyo na sa DOJ (Department of Justice) for PI (preliminary investigation), pero yung kay Mayor Baste parang ang level ay nasa law enforcement investigation pa rin?”
Matibag: “Sapagkat ang isa pong dinedevelop namin dito na theory po is yung sabwatan. Ang alam po natin, if we go to court using the theory of conspiracy, medyo mas mahirap po na ipasok na kaso kaya it’s taking much time to develop the case po.”
Lacson likewise asked Matibag for clarification on whether Lascañas’ affidavit has evidentiary value with regard to the investigation into VP Duterte’s alleged threats.
According to Matibag, Lascañas’ affidavit submitted to the International Criminal Court was only used by NBI as reference in its open-source investigation and not as part of evidence in VP Sara’s case.
Matibag: “As a matter of preference lang po for the purposes of establishing the pattern of violence. But to directly papanagutin po sa isang krimen or what ay, sa palagay ko po, baka po hindi ‘to tatanggapin ng korte.”
- Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo asked about the cases of other Filipinos who were arrested after offering money to those who would kill former President Rodrigo Duterte, similar to the case of high school teacher Ronnel Mas.
Tulfo: “Kamay na bakal ang pinairal kapag mga ordinaryong mahihirap na mamamayan ang pinaiiral niyo sa law enforcement. Pero kapag makapangyarihang mga tao, you treat them with kids’ gloves. Why is that?”
Matibag said he cannot speak about the law enforcement’s behavior that time but agreed that the arrests were warrantless, which was why the cases were dismissed. For the Vice President’s case, he said case buildup is still ongoing, and if such a case were to be filed in court, only then will a warrant of arrest be issued.
Matibag: “We are making sure that we are following the process and the law. In any case, wala pong malaki o maliit na kaso—ang tinitingnan po lagi natin dito ay ang ebidensya, ang batas, at ang proseso na dapat pong sundin.”
- Senator-judge Joel Villanueva sought clarification from Matibag if the NBI is focused on determining the identity of the alleged contracted person rather than confirming “whether such person exists in the first place.”
Matibag revealed that the bureau has narrowed its investigation down to “less than 20 individuals” and that they had begun speaking with some of their relatives and acquaintances as part of the probe.
The NBI chief also reiterated that the investigation is not limited to the Davao Death Squad but also includes men in uniform and the Vice Presidential Security Group.
- Senator-judge Bam Aquino asked Matibag why the NBI’s Transnational Crime Division is included in the agency’s special task force.
Aquino: “Meron bang transnational nature itong posibleng pagpatay sa Presidente? Meron bang foreign intervention or mga players na hindi po Pilipino sa inyong imbestigasyon?”
Matibag explained that possible foreign interference is also being investigated to determine whether there is a network of individuals involved in executing the alleged threats to the President.
Matibag: “Alam naman po natin, para patayin ang isang presidente, hindi po isa o dalawang tao lang nag-uusap dito… Yung capacity doon po pumapasok, kailangan ng pera, kailangan ng network, kailangan ng tao. So tinitingnan po natin ito lahat.
He added that another reason they included the Transnational Crime Division in the task force is that they are also discounting the possible threats to the security of the President during his foreign trips.
- Senator-judge Robin Padilla, meanwhile, directed his inquiry to the prosecution. He pressed Lead Prosecutor Rep. Luistro about presenting a witness with inconsistent statements that put into question his/her credibility.
Padilla referred to Lascañas’ affidavit that was earlier mentioned by NBI Director Matibag, pointing out that the individual kept on changing his story about extrajudicial killings.
He also asked the prosecution to avoid presenting witnesses with cases of perjury, referring to previous witnesses NBI Senior Agent John Mark Calilung and BARMM Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc.
Rep. Luistro said that they have already verified that Calilung and Lotoc have no pending cases, adding that conviction of a person is not a ground to disqualify a witness “unless it is final and unless it is punishable by more than one year and that the crime constitutes moral turpitude.”
With regards to the presentation of Lascañas’ ICC affidavit, Luistro reiterated that the affidavit was presented only as part of the testimony of the witness and the investigation of the NBI special task force.
- Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian sought further details from Matibag about how the NBI narrowed down the persons of interest in VP Duterte’s case.
Matibag clarified that persons of interest are different from the identity of the actual contracted killer, which is yet to be determined in the ongoing investigation of NBI.
On a scale of 1-10, Matibag said there is a 6-7 probability of identifying the person Vice President Duterte allegedly contracted.
- Senator-judge Francis Pangilinan asked Matibag whether there was “retaliation” from President Marcos Jr. regarding VP Sara’s alleged threats.
Pangilinan: “Would you consider, in a hypothetical situation, revenge as justified if there is a threat to the President… he likewise, publicly, threatens whoever?”
Matibag: “Palagay ko po, hindi tama sapagkat hindi naman po ito isang justifying o exempting na circumstance kapag nangyari po yung pagbabanta. Lalong-lalo na po kung mataas na opisyal, hindi po pwedeng maging batayan ang kanyang paghihiganti para magbanta.”
- Senator-judge Risa Hontiveros asked Matibag when does a statement against the government crosses from criticism into a national security concern.
Matibag: “Ang isa pong kritisimo ay lumalagpas na sa kalayaan magsalita kung mayroon na po tayong naba-violate na batas at lalong-lalo na po kung ito ay maghahantong sa kaguluhan at makokompromiso po ang ating national security.”
Hontiveros also asked Matibag whether a change in testimony strips a witness’ statement of the truth.
Matibag: “Ang testimonya po na paiba-iba ay diyan po pumapasok yung intervention ng korte na nakikinig kung anong testimonya ang dapat pakinggan. At titingnan po diyan ano ba ang circumstances. Bakit may ganong testimonya? Bakit nagbago? At eventually kung ano po yung talagang nilagdaan at kinilala ay importante po yun.”
- Senator-judge Imee Marcos asked Matibag if he is implying that there is a conspiracy between the Vice President and his brother Mayor Duterte to have the President killed. Matibag said that the matter remains under investigation.
She likewise questioned the relevance of the special task force as an impeachment trial is already being held on the Vice President’s alleged grave threats without an “actual assassination” taking place.
Imee Marcos: “Bakit pa kailangan mag-case buildup samantalang heto na tayo sa impeachment trial? Heto na tayo na wala pang actual assassination. Kaya hindi naman maintindihan kung ano pa ang silbi ng special task force.”
Matibag: “Alam po ninyo, ‘yung pong dito sa impeachment, magkaiba po ‘yung requirement. Hindi naman po natin kailangan pang i-presenta kung sino ‘yung kinausap na assassin. Ang importante lang po dito ay ‘yung admission mismo ng Vice President na humanap siya ng mamamatay para patayin ang presidente at iyon po ay pumayag.
- Asked by Presiding Officer Francis Escudero whether money is involved in the Vice President’s alleged contracting of the person to kill the president, Matibag said while they cannot yet say whether the arrangement was paid, this is part of the investigation.
Matibag likewise noted that a person’s capacity to kill would have to be weighed, saying that an individual with police or military background raises that probability.
- Senator-judge Loren Legarda then asked Matibag about NBI’s coordinated action in addressing national security concerns with regards to threats against the President.
Matibag reiterated that there is an inter-agency coordination between the NBI and the Presidential Security Command, the Office of the Executive Secretary, and the military group.
Before adjourning the trial, Presiding Officer Escudero directed the impeachment clerk of court to issue subpoenas to Violeta Constantino and Nenita Camposano who are former branch managers of LandBank for the resumption of the trial on July 29, 2026 at 10:00 a.m.
-av
