Chiz warns vs. early ‘closing arguments

Senate President Win Gatchalian and Impeachment Court Presiding Officer Sen. Chiz Escudero along with the senator-judges listen to arguments during Day 3 of the impeachment trial against Vice President Sara Duterte on July 8, 2026. (Courtesy: Senate of the Philippines)

Senate impeachment court Presiding Officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero on Wednesday warned both the prosecution and defense against making what amounted to closing arguments while presenting evidence in the trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.

Proceedings entered their third day with the continued cross-examination of the prosecution’s first witness, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Senior Agent John Mark Calilung.

The warning came after remarks made Tuesday by prosecution counsel Atty. Amando Ligutan, which Escudero described as premature and which Sen. Pia Cayetano said resembled a closing argument.

“The presiding officer will not tolerate such perorations again by either party even if it is in response to a question from a senator-judge,” Escudero said.

Senator-judges listen to prosecutor Atty. Virgil Ligutan during Day 3 of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte on July 8, 2026. (Courtesy: Senate of the Philippines) 

He added that he would “try to remind as best as we can, senator-judges to let the witnesses present the evidence of both parties instead of the counsels presenting both facts and law through their statements.”

The issue arose after Sen. Risa Hontiveros asked the prosecution following the testimony of Calilung: “Why are these acts impeachable?”

Escudero said the defense would be given five minutes and 18 seconds after cross-examination to explain its side, matching the time the prosecution spent answering the question.

Importance of procedural rules

Pia Cayetano, likening the impeachment court to a basketball game, stressed the importance of following procedural rules.

“Why are we being strict about the rules? Why do I have to bother standing up? Well, because nothing in this world will run well without the rules,” she said.

“Sometimes, there are also opportunities to question the rules, but that’s also fine. That’s why we have to stand up and call the attention of the presiding officer when we feel that the rules are being violated. And we will continue to do so when we believe it is necessary in the interest of justice.”

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano likewise urged fellow senator-judges to avoid questions that could prejudice the proceedings.

Senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano asks the witness a question on Day 3 of the impeachment trial. (Courtesy: Senate of the Philippines) 

“Stop ourselves from asking certain questions that can prejudice the whole trial, whether or not our intention is to do so,” he said.

The Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, is hearing Article IV of the Articles of Impeachment, which accuses Duterte of making grave threats, inciting sedition, and allegedly plotting the assassination of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.

Authenticity of videos, threats questioned

During cross-examination, defense counsel Carlo Joaquin Narvasa questioned Calilung on the authenticity of the prosecution’s videos, the NBI affidavit, the Department of Justice’s earlier case build-up certification, and whether the President, the First Lady or Romualdez had personally filed criminal complaints.

Calilung testified that none of the three personally appeared before the NBI and that he had no personal knowledge of whether they filed complaints.

He maintained, however, that the NBI may investigate threats against top government officials even without a formal complaint if sufficient evidence exists.

“If we found that the evidence is enough, that there is a crime committed, we will file a case because that’s the output of our investigation, sir,” Calilung said.

Prosecution witness NBI Senior Agent John Mark Calilung (center) undergoes cross examination from defense lawyer Carlo Joaquin Narvasa on July 8, 2026. (Courtesy: Senate of the Philippines) 

Asked whether the NBI could proceed without a complaint from the alleged victim, he replied: “We submitted it, sir, even without a complaint in the preliminary investigation, sir.”

A lengthy exchange with Cayetano centered on Duterte’s statement containing the phrase “kapag pinatay ako” (if I get killed) and whether the alleged threat was conditional.

Calilung acknowledged that the NBI affidavit described it as conditional. But when Cayetano sought his personal assessment as an investigator, the NBI officer answered: “The threat is absolute, sir.”

He explained that investigators also considered an earlier alleged conversation Duterte had before making the public statement.

“There is a condition na kapag pinatay siya, but as we can see, it’s only applicable if there is only two parties. The statement make a loophole wherein a third party can use that kapag namatay si VP, ma-e-execute niya ‘yung statement ni VP na may nakausap na siya,” he said.

NBI invited Duterte to discuss threats

Calilung testified that he was assigned to the case after receiving instructions from his executive officer following the circulation of the video. He added that the NBI also invited Duterte to discuss alleged threats against her own life.

Sen. Joel Villanueva asked how the NBI evaluates threats.

“If it’s an active threat, if the one giving the threat is capable of doing so,” Calilung replied, adding that “official capability or power” and the manner in which the threat was delivered are also considered.

The witness outlined his qualifications as a Certified Public Accountant with training in computer hacking forensic investigation, computer forensics, mobile forensics, photo and video authentication, cybercrime investigation, and 480 hours of cybersecurity training.

His credentials came under further scrutiny as Sen. Raffy Tulfo questioned his expertise in social media analytics and artificial intelligence after the defense presented excerpts from Duterte’s more than two-hour online press conference on Nov. 23, 2024.

Calilung: Video was not AI-generated

Tulfo asked whether Calilung had the expertise to determine if the video had been generated using AI.

Calilung replied that, based on his personal observation, the video was not AI-generated because it ran for more than two hours, explaining that AI-generated videos are typically much shorter.

Tulfo also asked whether the NBI had examined public reaction to the video. Calilung testified that some online comments expressed agreement with Duterte’s statement regarding the killing of the President, while others allegedly called for a people power movement.

A video clip featuring Zuleika Lopez, Chief of Staff of Vice President Sara Duterte, is played on screen on Day 3 of the impeachment trial. (Courtesy: Senate of the Philippines) 

Tulfo said his questions were intended to help determine whether the acts attributed to Duterte could fall under the constitutional grounds for impeachment, including culpable violation of the Constitution, high crimes and betrayal of public trust.

Sen. Francis Pangilinan also questioned Calilung on his educational background after the defense challenged his qualifications in digital technology and cybersecurity.

Padilla focuses on authenticity of evidence

Meanwhile, Sen. Robinhood Padilla focused on the authenticity of the digital evidence. He asked whether investigators had obtained the original video file or an affidavit from the person who recorded it.

Calilung acknowledged that the NBI did not obtain the original recording, explaining that investigators preserved a copy of a publicly available internet video using OBS screen recording software.

Padilla emphasized the importance of securing the original file and asked the impeachment court to require the submission of Calilung’s complete credentials and certifications, saying evidence and witnesses in a case of national significance must withstand the highest standards of scrutiny and due process.

After the witness stepped down, House trial spokesperson Rep. Zia Alonto-Adiong said the prosecution saw no need for re-direct examination because “the cross-examination failed to create any material issue that required clarification.”

House impeachment trial spokesperson Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong (1st District, Lanao del Sur) listens to a question during a press conference on July 8, 2026. (Courtesy: House of Representatives) 

“The witness remained composed, consistent, and unwavering on every material point. After hours of cross-examination, the testimony stood exactly where it stood before the defense began its questioning,” he said.

“This impeachment trial is about evidence—not theatrics, not distractions. What the public witnessed today was evidence subjected to rigorous cross-examination and emerging intact.”

House prosecution adviser and spokesperson Robert Ace Barbers likewise said Calilung’s testimony remained credible despite exhaustive questioning.

“Agent Calilung demonstrated professionalism, competence, and composure throughout the proceedings,” Barbers said.

He argued that the defense’s own questioning reinforced the prosecution’s position that Duterte chief of staff Atty. Zuleika Lopez is a material witness.

“Kung ang mismong depensa ay nakikitang mahalaga ang mga usaping iyon upang maipaliwanag ang konteksto ng mga naging pahayag, lalo lamang nitong ipinakikita na si Atty. Lopez ay isang material witness na may personal na kaalaman sa mahahalagang pangyayari,” Barbers said.

Prosecution focused on presenting evidence

House prosecution legal spokesperson Jay Tolosa said the panel remained focused on presenting evidence rather than counting votes after Escudero confirmed that 16 votes would be required for conviction.

“Our stand on this has been consistent from the very start. We don’t engage in vote counting,” Tolosa said.

Alonto-Adiong also clarified that the prosecution has no intention of asking the impeachment court to adjust the conviction threshold.

“The House Prosecution Panel will not request or make any official request before the impeachment court to readjust the threshold,” he said.

The prosecution is scheduled to present its second witness on July 13.

House prosecutor Lorenz Defensor said lawyer Jeremy Lotoc of the NBI-Bangsamoro Administrative Region and Capt. Belinda Bello, executive director of the House of Representatives Legislative Security Bureau, are expected to testify next week.

Lacson lauds peers for composure

Separately, Sen. Panfilo Lacson commended his fellow senator-judges for maintaining their composure despite what he described as repeated “lectures” from one of their colleagues, whom he did not identify.

“Day 3: I commend my fellow senator-judges for keeping our cool and not engage a colleague who has been lecturing us since Day 1 of the impeachment trial, as if being not members of the bar, we will be less judicious in rendering fair judgment,” Lacson said.

Senator-judge Panfilo ‘Ping’ Lacson speaks on Day 3 of the impeachment trial. (Courtesy: Senate of the Philippines) 

Lacson also welcomed Escudero’s clarification that 16 affirmative votes are required for conviction, saying the issue could now be elevated to the Supreme Court by any party alleging grave abuse of discretion by the impeachment court.

Duterte’s lawyers, led by Israelito Torreon, have filed a petition before the High Court questioning Escudero’s election and seeking a status quo ante order.

“Now that it is settled and clear that the issue is a justiciable issue or controversy, any party that wishes to question it before the Supreme Court if they believe the Impeachment Court committed ‘grave abuse of discretion’ can do so,” Lacson said.

He reiterated that 16 votes are needed because the Senate still has 24 members in the 20th Congress, including detained senators Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta, as well as Sen. Ronald dela Rosa, whom he described as remaining in hiding. — Joel E. Zurbano & Maricel Cruz