MANILA, Philippines — The impeachment court set out to sprint through the prosecution's final witness for grave threats on Tuesday, July 21.
But a lengthy direct and cross-examination of NBI Director Melvin Matibag stretched into the evening, prompting presiding officer Chiz Escudero to grant the trial's first continuance and leave the charge unfinished for another day.
Matibag is the last witness the prosecution will present on Article IV, the charge that Duterte gravely threatened the president at a November 2024 online press conference, where she said she had told someone to kill the president, first lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez if she herself were killed.
1. NBI has found persons of interest in Duterte case after all
Under direct examination by lead prosecutor Rep. Jinky Luistro (Batangas, 2nd District), Matibag said the special task force he created in April under Administrative Order No. 11 sought to pursue what he called a continuing investigation into the threat against Marcos.
He differentiated that inquiry and the earlier NBI case that produced grave threats and inciting to sedition complaints, now pending at the Department of Justice.
Those, he said, concern an ordinary crime. This special task force is chasing something larger, such as the "serious, active and continuing threat to the life of the president." This, for Matibag, is now a "national security issue," because Duterte's own words had crossed from warning into intent.
To assess the danger, Matibag said, the NBI used a five-part method he traced to the protective-intelligence work of the US Secret Service, applied when "there is a threat to a known personality": pattern of violence, gravity, identity, capacity and motive.
The NBI chief confirmed they have already identified "persons of interest" who could lead to whoever Duterte allegedly spoke with, but would not name them, calling the inquiry open and continuing.
2. Defense targets Matibag's credibility
When the defense's turn came, defense counsel Mark Vinluan chose to focus much of his questioning on the NBI chief's lack of direct, personal knowledge of the NBI's earlier probe into Duterte's actions.
The court heard repeated confirmation from Matibag himself that he got the post only on Feb. 20, 2026. This is more than a year after the November 2024 press conference.
Matibag said his knowledge of the NBI's early-stage investigation came entirely from official records and its February affidavit of investigation.
Vinluan pressed on possible bias. He confirmed that Matibag's wife, Rep. Lourdes Matibag (Laguna, 1st District), was among the endorsers of the impeachment resolution.
The defense also showed the court three opinion columns Matibag wrote in 2024 that all criticize Duterte as a "bratinella," a term Matibag claimed was coined for her by her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte.
In perhaps one of many detours of the day, the defense also showed the court an infographic of an alleged Social Weathers Station survey putting Duterte's trust rating at 57%. In doing so, Vinluan was drawing Matibag to explain whether he still felt Duterte had poor public trust, as he wrote in his 2024 columns.
Matibag held that his writings reflected his views at the time and that surveys do not steer the NBI's investigations. "A survey is just a snapshot," he said.
He maintained his wife's work as a legislator is also "totally detached" from his post.
At one point, Vinluan and Matibag also sparred over what the NBI chief could properly testify to at all. Asked for the Tagalog term for hearsay, Vinluan offered "chismis," or gossip; Matibag, who answered he was a lawyer of 29 years, replied that he had never heard the word used for hearsay in any court.
3. Some eye-twitching as court hears Arturo Lascañas' allegations vs VP Sara
Perhaps no piece of evidence drew longer or sharper argument than the affidavit of Arturo Lascañas, a self-confessed member of the Davao Death Squad, which Matibag said the task force reviewed as part of its "pattern of violence" assessment for Duterte.
Submitted to the International Criminal Court, the document names Duterte as one of the architects of the Oplan Tokhang killings during her years as Davao City mayor and claims she personally ordered abductions.
Vinluan objected at nearly every turn — that Matibag could not testify to a statement he did not execute, that the copy shown was unsigned and never notarized, that it was "a mere scrap of paper."
Escudero allowed the affidavit to be presented but only to show what the NBI had examined, "not as to the truth of the allegations."
He would restate that limit repeatedly as prosecutors had Matibag read passages aloud, including one recounting an alleged kill order Lascañas attributed to Duterte at a Davao gas station.
Escudero issued the reminder a fourth time before cutting the reading short, saying the prosecution had sufficiently made its point.
In the end, it was this surprise introduction of the Lascañas affidavit that led the defense to ask that proceedings be paused and continued tomorrow.
Duterte's camp had asked for a continuance to review material it said was newly introduced during Matibag's direct examination — including the roughly 100-page Lascañas affidavit — and to study subjects it argued fell outside the impeachment articles.
Escudero granted their request, overriding the prosecution's objections.
4. A limit to interjections
Notably, Day 8 also changed the extent to which senator-judges could interject.
In the first half of the trial, Escudero, as presiding officer, told the senator-judges to hold their questions until after each witness's cross-examination and any redirect, except for urgent administrative or procedural matters.
The proceeding, he said, is "more of a trial .... than seeking clarificatory questions, when the counsel can elicit that from the witness anyway."
This is a shift from earlier trial days, when senators would break in freely during testimony.
When the interpellations did come, Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian pressed Matibag on whether the bureau has uncovered an actual contract or identified an accomplice in Duterte's alleged plot against Marcos.
Matibag acknowledged that after a year and eight months, the NBI has not found an actual contract or a specific hitman.
Trial resumes tomorrow with the cross-examination of Matibag.
- Latest
- Trending
Facts Only
* The impeachment court scheduled the prosecution's final witness as NBI Director Melvin Matibag on July 21.
* Matibag was questioned regarding grave threats made by Duterte at a November 2024 online press conference, where statements concerned killing the president and first lady if killed.
* The trial received a continuance due to the length of the examination of Matibag.
* Matibag stated his special task force pursued an investigation into a continuing threat, differentiating it from earlier NBI complaints pending at the Department of Justice.
* Matibag noted the NBI used a five-part method for assessing threats based on pattern of violence, gravity, identity, capacity, and motive.
* The NBI confirmed identifying "persons of interest" but did not name them.
* Defense counsel focused questioning on Matibag's direct knowledge of the earlier probe and presented writings by Matibag and an infographic regarding public trust.
* Arturo Lascañas submitted an affidavit alleging Duterte was an architect of Oplan Tokhang killings.
* The court allowed presentation of the Lascañas affidavit but limited testimony to what the NBI examined, not the truth of allegations.
* Procedural rules were adjusted, limiting senator-judges' interjections during testimony.
Executive Summary
The impeachment court proceeded with the prosecution's final witness, NBI Director Melvin Matibag, who was scheduled to testify regarding grave threats made by Sara Duterte. The examination of Matibag extended into the evening, leading the presiding officer to grant a continuance to complete the proceedings another day. Matibag was the final witness for the prosecution on Article IV, concerning threats made at a November 2024 online press conference where statements were allegedly made to kill the president and first lady if she herself were killed.
During cross-examination, the defense focused on Matibag's knowledge of the NBI's earlier investigation and introduced other materials, including writings by Matibag and an affidavit from Arturo Lascañas. The defense sought to challenge Matibag's credibility and questioned the scope of his testimony against evidence that suggested a broader pattern of alleged threats. The court also adjusted procedural rules, limiting the interjections of senator-judges during testimony.
The proceedings involved complex exchanges regarding hearsay, personal knowledge, and the presentation of sensitive documents, including an affidavit from Lascañas, which prompted a request for a continuance by Duterte's camp.
Full Take
The narrative presents a tension between official investigative findings and politically charged personal testimony within a judicial setting. The introduction of the Lascañas affidavit as a pivot point for procedural delays reveals a struggle over the admissible scope of evidence, particularly when dealing with unverified claims from highly sensitive sources versus established investigative processes. The defense's strategy to introduce documents criticizing Duterte's public persona and Matibag’s perceived detachment attempts to shift the focus from direct threats to character assessment and external context.
The pattern of procedural maneuvering, where a request for continuance is granted based on newly introduced material, suggests an attempt to manage the flow of contested information. Furthermore, the sparring over terminology (hearsay vs. "chismis") highlights how language itself becomes contested terrain in high-stakes legal narratives. The final adjustment to courtroom decorum, limiting interjections, points to a deliberate effort by the court structure to reassert control over the process when the testimony veers into political and unsubstantiated allegations.
The implications suggest that in politically charged proceedings, the validity of evidence is often secondary to the strategic control of the narrative flow. The persistence of shadow narratives, such as the Lascañas affidavit, forces the judicial mechanism to grapple not just with documented threats, but with the wider context of alleged conduct and public perception. What mechanisms exist for adjudicating claims rooted in personal accounts when the primary focus remains on verifiable intent?