[An MCT Tracker]
[These are only the highlights of Day 2. Many exchanges, motions, and details from the session are not included here. For the complete record, refer to the Senate’s official journal and the live coverage of the trial.]
The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte resumed on Tuesday, July 7, 2026 at 2:00 PM. The prosecution opened its case on Article IV, the alleged grave threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
Vice President Duterte visited the Senate at noon but did not attend the proceedings.
Here is what happened on Day 2.
THE VICE PRESIDENT ARRIVED. THEN LEFT
Vice President Duterte arrived at the Senate shortly after noon, wearing a green polo shirt, a color closely associated with her political brand.
She met with her defense team, spoke briefly to reporters, and did not attend the trial proper.
She told reporters: “In this bloodbath and bludgeoning, I will be bloodied but unbowed.” The line is drawn from the 1875 poem “Invictus” by William Ernest Henley.
Presiding officer Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero reiterated that Duterte cannot be compelled to appear.
DEFENSOR OPENED FOR THE PROSECUTION
Rep. Lorenz Defensor delivered the House prosecution’s opening statement for Article IV.
He argued that Duterte’s alleged threats to have President Marcos, the First Lady, and former Speaker Romualdez killed “went beyond ordinary criminal conduct and amounted to a violation of the Constitution.”
The prosecution asserted that Duterte’s remarks were not isolated statements but part of a “series of statements” indicating a genuine intent to have the three killed.
KAPUNAN RESERVED THE RIGHT TO CALL DUTERTE AS A HOSTILE WITNESS
Private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan filed a manifestation reserving the prosecution’s right to call Vice President Duterte herself as a hostile witness.
“On the first article that we will be presenting, which is grave threats and acts of sedition, one of the key witnesses, albeit hostile, would be the vice president,” Kapunan told the court.
Escudero did not act on the motion, saying the court will act “once it is made or filed.”
Kapunan replied: “We will reserve the right — we are not waiving the right — to do call her at the appropriate time and to do file the appropriate request for a subpoena duces tecum and subpoena testificandum.”
CALILUNG TOOK THE STAND. THE FLASH DRIVE WAS UNSEALED
NBI Senior Agent John Mark Calilung, of the NBI Cyber Investigation and Assessment Center, took the witness stand as the first witness in the substantive phase of the trial.
He was presented by private prosecutor Atty. Amando Virgil Ligutan.
Calilung unsealed the flash drive containing the video evidence related to Article IV.
He testified that the NBI Cybercrime Division team investigated Duterte’s statements made during an online media briefing on November 23, 2024.
Calilung testified about the chain of custody: the NBI requested Meta Platforms to preserve the recording, made screen recordings of the livestream, and computed hash values to detect any modifications.
He described the hash value as a “digital fingerprint” that would change if the video were altered. He also testified that the NBI subpoenaed journalists who participated in Duterte’s late-night Zoom press conference on November 23, 2024, including Inquirer reporter Dempsey Reyes and former Rappler journalist Bonz Magsambol.
Both provided sworn affidavits affirming they heard Duterte’s remarks.
THE VIDEO PLAYED IN COURT
The impeachment court viewed the November 23, 2024 clip. In it, Duterte said in Filipino:
“Huwag kang mag-alala ma’am sa security ko kasi may kinausap na ako na tao. Sinabi ko sa kanya, kapag pinatay ako, patayin mo si BBM, si Liza Araneta at si Martin Romualdez. No joke, no joke. Nagbilin na ako ma’am. ’Pag namatay ako, sabi ko, huwag ka tumigil hanggang hindi mo mapatay sila. And then he said yes.”
Translated: “Don’t worry, ma’am, about my security because I already talked to someone. I told that person that if I am killed, kill BBM, Liza Araneta, and Martin Romualdez. No joke, no joke. I already gave instructions, ma’am. If I die, I said, don’t stop until you kill them. And then he said yes.”
The court also viewed an October 18, 2024 clip in which Duterte said she had imagined cutting off Marcos’s head.
A third video, from the Presidential Communications Office, showed the President responding to those statements.
NARVASA OBJECTED. REPEATEDLY. ESCUDERO OVERRULED. REPEATEDLY
Defense counsel Atty. Carlo Joaquin Narvasa raised objections through most of the questioning. Escudero overruled nearly all of them but refrained from declaring the defense out of order.
At least eleven distinct defense objections and motions are documented in the record on Day 2.
They are listed here with the ground raised, what triggered each, and how the presiding officer ruled.
1. “Your honor, I object. Is this a speech or an offer?” Ligutan was enumerating details on Duterte’s alleged threats. Overruled. Ligutan was allowed to proceed.
2. Continuing objection registered by Narvasa on the record. No specific ground stated beyond preservation. Escudero did not rule; the objection stood as noted.
3. Motion to exclude Calilung as a witness. Ground: Calilung was not named in the Saballa and Cabrera complaints that formed the basis of the articles of impeachment. Ligutan argued the Saballa complaint had “lived its natural life” once the articles were transmitted. Denied, citing Enrile v. Sandiganbayan: prosecutors may add or rely on evidence during pre-trial even if the evidence is not stated in the complaint or articles, because only a summary is required.
4. Leading or vague question. Triggered by Ligutan asking Calilung: “In what particular portion of the subject video did the respondent utter that she already contracted a person to kill the president, the first lady and the former speaker of the House?” Overruled. Escudero told the defense to let the prosecution finish: “Counsel for the respondent, patience. Let the counsel finish.”
5. “The question is misleading. There is no mention anywhere before that, that the video mentioned the killing.” Same prosecution question to Calilung. Overruled.
6. Challenge to Calilung’s qualifications to testify regarding Meta’s evidence preservation process. Overruled.
7. Challenge to the certification documents and affidavits tied to the video’s preservation and authentication. Overruled.
8. Challenge to the authenticity of the flash drive containing the video. Overruled.
9. Challenge to the duration of the clip presented, a two-minute excerpt from a roughly two-hour press conference recording. Overruled.
10. Motion that the entire recording be shown for full context, citing the Rules of Court. Denied. Escudero ruled that both sides had the discretion to determine how to present their evidence, and that showing shorter clips was not inappropriate.
11. Narvasa seconded Senator-judge Pia Cayetano’s motion to strike Ligutan’s answer to Senator-judge Risa Hontiveros off the record. Cayetano argued Ligutan’s response — that Duterte’s statements showed “specific intent, knowledge, identity, plan, system and the like” — was “like a closing statement” and a “shortcut in the process.” Deferred. Escudero: “No need, counsel. Most of them will be taken up at the proper time by this court.”
Of the eleven items, seven were overruled outright, two motions were denied, one motion to strike was deferred, and one continuing objection was noted for the record without ruling.
This is a floor, not a ceiling. Several individual leading-question objections during Calilung’s testimony ran back-to-back and are captured here in aggregate rather than one by one.
Senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano expressed a personal preference to view the full video. Senator-judge Risa Hontiveros asked whether Duterte’s remarks alone constituted an impeachable offense.
Ligutan answered that they did, arguing the videos illustrated that Duterte’s statements were part of a genuine intent to have Marcos killed.
TONGOL EXPLAINED WHY THE DAY RAN LONG
Impeachment court spokesperson Atty. Reginald Tongol addressed the length of the proceedings: “Today it was long because of the technicality of the law.”
He added, in Filipino: “Sana maintindihan natin na kasama po ang mga ganoong procedure at formalities, pag-iidentify ng ebidensya, mga technicalities to establish the chain of custody at pag-iidentify at authenticate ng ebidensya.”
He said the process is part of what lawyers do in every court, and both sides have the right to raise objections and to seek rulings on them.
NEW SUBPOENAS REQUESTED
The House prosecution asked the impeachment court to issue subpoenas ad testificandum for OVP Chief of Staff Zuleika Lopez and NBI Director Melvin Matibag. Both are directed to appear and testify before the impeachment court on July 13 to 15, 2026 at 2:00 PM.
The prosecution said the testimonies of Lopez and Matibag are material, relevant, and necessary to establish the allegations under Article IV.
Separately, the impeachment court disclosed that the prosecution’s renewed subpoena request for Duterte’s bank records, addressed to AMLC Chairman Eli Remolona Jr., was received on July 6 at 3:35 PM.
A separate request for tax documents covering Duterte, her husband Manases Carpio, and 22 businesses in which Duterte allegedly has an interest was received at the same time.
Both requests were forwarded to the defense, which has five days to file a comment or opposition.
THE SUPREME COURT PETITION IS STILL PENDING
A group of lawyers led by Atty. Israelito Torreon filed a 16-page very urgent manifestation with motion before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, reiterating their plea for a temporary restraining order against the impeachment trial.
The manifestation cited supervening events during the trial, including the election of Escudero as presiding officer, as reasons for the High Court to act.
The petition argues that Escudero lacks constitutional authority to preside because the June 3, 2026 Senate rule amendment allowing a senator other than the Senate President to preside was itself procedurally defective.
As of Tuesday evening, the Supreme Court had not publicly ruled on the petition.
Impeachment court spokesperson Tongol said the trial will proceed regardless. If the Supreme Court issues a TRO, he said the impeachment court will vote on it.
WHAT DAY 2 SIGNALED
The prosecution moved from procedural setup to substantive evidence. It presented its first video exhibits, its first witness, and reserved the right to call the respondent herself.
The defense contested nearly every move.
The presiding officer overruled nearly every contest but never silenced the defense.
The trial ran long.
Cross-examination of Calilung by the defense is scheduled for Wednesday, July 8, at 2:00 PM.