The Wire

Asked to describe his most important responsibility as NBI director, Matibag drew a sharp line between his agency and private detective work.

"Hindi kami private investigating agency," he said, "kundi ang aming pang primerong ginagawa ay ang pagbabantay para po sa ating mga taong bayan." ["We are not a private investigating agency — our primary work is to stand guard for our fellow citizens."]

He added that this mandate extends to pursuing and, where necessary, charging those who violate the laws the NBI is tasked to uphold — framing the agency's role in constitutional, public-interest terms ahead of testimony on the impeachment trial itself.

The presiding officer intervened sharply during Matibag's preliminary examination, warning the prosecution that it had heard enough on the witness's qualifications and ordering counsel to move to the core of their case.

"So kindly go straight to the matter at the soonest possible time," the presiding officer said from the bench. "You're on a short leash with respect to the preliminaries on the qualifications of the witness."

The intervention came after defence counsel had already offered to stipulate to the NBI director's powers and responsibilities — an offer the prosecution rejected, insisting senators and the public deserved to hear the testimony in full. Prosecution counsel appeared to acknowledge the bench's direction, saying they were ready to "go into the meat" of the direct examination.

When the defense offered to stipulate — that is, formally agree without testimony — to the powers and responsibilities of the NBI Director, the prosecution pushed back.

"Mahalagang marinig ng ating mga iginagalang na Senator-Judges, ganun din ng mga kababayan na nanonood," the prosecutor said ["It is important for our respected Senator-Judges, as well as the countrymen watching, to hear"] the full scope of what an NBI director can do. The presiding officer ultimately told Matibag to answer the question himself, directing counsel to get to the substance "at the soonest possible time."

Director Matibag has begun outlining the powers and responsibilities of the National Bureau of Investigation, telling the court: "Ang una-una na po, we are the primary investigating authority ng ating bansang" ["First and foremost, we are the primary investigating authority of our nation"] — covering crimes that fall within the agency's mandate and, he said, including the formation of divisions or units as needed.

The presiding officer had pressed prosecution counsel to move quickly past the witness's qualifications, telling them they were "on a short leash" on preliminaries. The NBI chief's description of his agency's mandate is now on the record before the Senator-Judges.

When the defense raised a relevance objection to questions about Matibag's government posts under successive administrations, the prosecution pushed back with a pointed argument about the witness's credibility.

"The prosecution, your honor, is establishing the competence of the witness," counsel said, adding that they are showing "he is loyal to his duty, regardless of the principal he is serving."

The presiding officer overruled the objection, instructing the prosecution to "wind up" the preliminary questions — but the framing signals how the prosecution intends to present Matibag as an independent, apolitical official whose findings carry weight across administrations.

NBI Director Matibag has added significant detail to his government career history, telling the impeachment trial he served as president and CEO of the National Transmission Corporation (TransCo) from January 2017 to March 2022 — spanning much of the Duterte administration.

He also disclosed he subsequently served as Cabinet Secretary under former president Rodrigo Duterte before his current appointment as NBI director.

The testimony, given in Filipino, rounds out a career that has already covered the Arroyo administration at the Laguna Lake Development Authority and the Duterte administration at the Manila International Airport Authority.

Under initial questioning, NBI Director Matibag told the impeachment court he held several senior government posts before his current appointment — including General Manager of the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) and Director of the Laguna Lake Development Authority, both during the administration of former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

He also said he is currently serving as dean of Lyceum of the Philippines College of Law, Alabang campus — a position he holds alongside his NBI role.

The background questions are standard foundation-laying before the prosecution moves to the substance of the task force investigation.

The presiding officer formally ruled that testimony and evidence from the NBI special task force will be admitted, telling the court the material goes to persistence — an element of the grave-threats charge the prosecution must prove.

In a move designed to speed proceedings, defence counsel registered a blanket standing objection to all such evidence rather than interrupt each time. The presiding officer noted the arrangement, saying the defence "may object at any time" and rulings will be made as issues arise.

The chair also cautioned the lead prosecutor that the word 'banta' (threat) is a conclusion the prosecution must establish through witnesses — and that characterisation must come from the witness on the stand, not from counsel.

NBI Director Melvin Matibag opened his direct examination by providing his personal background to the impeachment court. He testified that the National Bureau of Investigation is based at the 9th floor, Philand West Cyber Suite Building in Pasay City.

Matibag said he holds a Bachelor of Arts, Major in Philosophy from the University of Santo Tomas, and later completed a Master of Laws, Major in Corporate and Financial Law at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, USA.

He confirmed he is a lawyer, and prosecutors are expected to move quickly into the substance of the task force investigation following the chair's instruction to skip introductory questions already admitted by the defense.

The presiding officer delivered a detailed ruling allowing NBI Director Matibag's testimony to proceed, including evidence relating to the special task force formed in April 2026 — after the impeachment complaints were filed with the Senate in May but, the chair noted, after the complaints had already been lodged.

The chair framed the task force evidence narrowly: it goes to "persistence or lack thereof," an element of the crime of grave threats that the prosecution must prove. The chair also reminded prosecutors that the word *banta* (threat) is a conclusion they must establish through the witness — it should not be characterised by counsel.

To streamline proceedings, the defense registered a continuing objection covering all the grounds it had raised, meaning it will not need to re-object each time the same issues arise. The chair noted the arrangement was already anticipated — "I'm already seeing what attorney Ben Lowan will do because he's reaching for the mic" — before formally allowing the examination to begin.

Responding to the defense's objections, the lead prosecutor defended the relevance of the NBI task force testimony with a direct reference to the November 23, 2024 video at the centre of Article 4.

"Maliwanag po sa naging banta ng VP kognay ng November 23, 2024 na video — kusap-siyang tao kognay ng kanyang banta sa buhay ng Presidente, ng First Lady at ng Dating Speaker," the prosecutor told the court ["It is clear from the VP's threat in the November 23, 2024 video — she was acting on her own volition in her threat against the life of the President, the First Lady and the former Speaker"].

The special task force was created precisely because of the possibility, the prosecution said, "na hindi po mag-isa ang vicepresidente sa bantang ito" ["that the Vice President did not act alone in this threat"] — making its findings relevant to the scope and character of the alleged conspiracy.

The presiding officer has ruled that NBI Director Matibag's testimony will be allowed to continue, overruling the defense's string of objections on relevance, due process, and lack of personal knowledge.

On the contested word *banta* (threat), the chair reminded senator-judges that it is indeed a conclusion of fact — but one the prosecution must prove through the witness, not through counsel's own statements. "Let the witness testify and characterize it," the chair said, directing the lead prosecutor to stop pre-empting the characterisation.

On the NBI task force, the presiding officer noted it was formed in April 2026, after the impeachment complaints had already been filed — and said its evidence, if admitted, would go to proving persistence or the absence of it, an element of the charge of grave threats. The defense was told it may raise fresh objections at any point during testimony, which the chair will rule on each time.

The defense raised a fresh objection moments before the presiding officer was set to rule on the prosecution's offer of testimony: because the prosecution referenced events prior to Director Matibag's appointment, his testimony on those matters would be based on no personal knowledge.

The move adds a fourth line of attack to the defense's earlier objections — irrelevance, due-process violation, and the argument that the task force was never mentioned in the impeachment complaint — and could further complicate the court's ruling on whether Matibag's full testimony proceeds.

The lead prosecutor pushed back sharply against defense objections, arguing that the NBI special task force and its additional investigation are directly relevant to Article 4 of the impeachment complaint.

"Hindi po mag-isa ang vicepresidente sa bantang ito," the prosecutor said — ["The vice president did not act alone in this threat"] — framing the task force's expanded probe as essential to proving the full scope of the alleged threat against the President's life.

The prosecution also cited yesterday's court ruling on prior documents, arguing that evidence need not be specifically named in the articles of impeachment to be admissible — only that it bear a relevant connection to those articles.

Before testimony began, the presiding officer announced that statements made by Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano and Senator-Judge Pia Cayetano on July 15 — relating to remarks by NBI Director Matibag and a video presented in court — will be referred to the Senate as a legislative body and forwarded to its rules committee for proper disposition.

The chair said the matter would be taken up there, and not in the impeachment court, and admonished Director Matibag to avoid making further statements about individual senator-judges during his testimony.

The ruling effectively removes a simmering side-dispute over the NBI chief's earlier public comments from the trial's immediate proceedings.

The lead prosecutor pushed back on defense objections to NBI Director Matibag's testimony, arguing the special task force investigation goes to the heart of the case.

"Hindi po mag-isa ang vicepresidente sa bantang ito," the prosecutor told the impeachment court — ["The vice president may not have acted alone in this threat"] — framing the task force's expanded inquiry as directly relevant to the article on threats.

The prosecution said the task force was created specifically to investigate whether others were involved in the alleged threat made in VP Sara Duterte's November 23, 2024 video, and argued its findings meet the test of relevance. The defense had objected that the task force was never mentioned in the articles of impeachment and that introducing it now amounts to a new charge — a violation of the VP's right to due process.

Before the defense objections landed, the prosecution read into the record seven reasons for calling Director Matibag as its final witness on the 'threat' article.

In Tagalog, lead counsel told the court the testimony would establish: that a special task force was formed to investigate threats to the President's life; that additional investigation was conducted, including into threats linked to former vice-president Sara Duterte; that "*ang pagbanta sa buhay ng Pangulo ay hindi lamang pagbanta sa kanyang buhay, kundi pagbanta sa Pambansang Seguridad*" ["a threat on the President's life is not merely a threat on his life, but a threat to national security"]; and that the NBI's findings and documents from that investigation would be identified and authenticated.

The defense immediately stipulated to point one — that Matibag is the current NBI director — to save time, but contested everything else.

The defense raised a sweeping series of objections as the prosecution began to outline what NBI Director Melvin Matibag will testify to, targeting at least five of seven stated purposes for the witness.

The core argument: the NBI special task force was never mentioned in the articles of impeachment, making testimony about it "tantamount to a new information" — and therefore irrelevant. Defense counsel told the court that the articles of impeachment are "akin to an information filed in court," and that the prosecution cannot modify its case mid-trial.

"Any new information is irrelevant," defense counsel said, warning that allowing it "will be a violation of our client's right to due process, particularly her right to be promptly and fully apprised of the exact charge against her." The defense also objected to the prosecution's use of the word *banta* (threat) as "conclusions of fact." The presiding officer then asked the prosecution to respond.

In laying out the ground it intends to cover with NBI Director Matibag, the prosecution told the impeachment court it would seek to establish that the alleged threats against the President's life were not merely personal — but a threat to national security.

The prosecution listed seven purposes for Matibag's testimony, including: confirming his role as current NBI director; the formation of a special task force to investigate the threats; the findings of that task force; and the identification and authentication of documents produced by the NBI investigation.

The prosecution also indicated it was prepared to stipulate — without the need for questions — that Matibag is the sitting NBI director, an apparent gesture toward speeding up the proceedings.

The first courtroom clash of the day erupted as soon as the prosecution outlined what NBI Director Melvin Matibag would testify about.

The defense moved to block any questions about the special task force convened to investigate threats against the President, arguing the task force was not mentioned in the articles of impeachment or the original impeachment complaint — and was therefore irrelevant to the charges before the court.

The prosecution had listed the task force as its second purpose for calling Matibag, telling the court the NBI unit conducted additional investigations into threats against the President's life, including what was described as the BSEP threat. The defense's objection puts the scope of Matibag's entire testimony in immediate dispute.

Atty. Melvin Matibag, identified on the record as director of the ZNBI, was called to the stand and administered his oath this afternoon — the prosecution's declared last witness on Article 4 of the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte.

With Matibag's testimony, the prosecution moves toward closing out its case on the article centring on the alleged threats made by the Vice President. Direct examination had not yet begun as of the admonishment by the presiding officer.

Before prosecution could begin its direct examination of Atty. Melvin Matibag, director of the ZNBI, the presiding officer stepped in with an unusual on-the-record admonishment.

The chair told Matibag — the prosecution's final witness on Article 4 (the 'threat' article) — "to kindly avoid statements appertaining to individual members of this impeachment court," according to the screen transcript of proceedings.

The warning, issued the moment Matibag was sworn in, signals that the bench is already managing the tone of what could be sensitive testimony ahead of direct examination.

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has condemned an assault by China Coast Guard personnel on a Filipino Navy sailor at Ayungin Shoal on Monday, July 20, rejecting Beijing's claim that Filipino personnel provoked the clash, the Palace said on Tuesday.

A CCG vessel launched a rigid-hull inflatable boat that approached the BRP Sierra Madre at close range around 9:15am, the National Task Force for the West Philippine Sea said. When two Filipino rubber boats moved to drive it away, a CCG officer struck a Filipino Navy sailor on the head with a wooden baton. The Department of National Defense called the attack part of a pattern of "provocative and hostile behavior" by China.

Beijing offered an opposite account, saying Philippine personnel "aggressively harassed" its patrol boat and struck Chinese officers with oars and poles, Cristina Chi reports for the Philippine Star.

Calling a last witness on an article is a procedural marker: once Matibag's testimony and cross-examination conclude, the prosecution will have rested its case on the threat-related charge — one of several articles before the impeachment court.

The defense will then have the opportunity to cross-examine. Whether the presiding officer allows the article to proceed to the next phase — or whether other articles still have witnesses queued — will shape how much longer the trial's evidentiary stage runs.

*The witness's agency name was partially obscured in the transcript; we are rendering it as best heard. We will update when the court record confirms the full designation.*

The prosecution has called Attorney Melvin Matibag, identified on the record as director of the ZNBI, to the witness stand — announcing him as the last witness for the article of the complaint dealing with alleged threats.

The move signals that the prosecution is nearing the close of its case on at least one of the articles filed against Vice President Sara Duterte. Both prosecution and defense entered their appearances and confirmed readiness before the presiding officer directed the case to proceed.

The witness has not yet begun testimony. Proceedings are live.

The prosecution has called Attorney Melvin Matibag, identified on the record as director of the ZNBI, to the witness stand — announcing him as the last witness for the article of the complaint dealing with alleged threats.

The move signals that the prosecution is nearing the close of its case on at least one of the articles filed against Vice President Sara Duterte. Both prosecution and defense entered their appearances and confirmed readiness before the presiding officer directed the case to proceed.

The witness has not yet begun testimony. Proceedings are live.

China's foreign ministry summoned the Philippines' ambassador to Beijing on Tuesday over a clash at a disputed shoal the previous day, AFP reports. The ministry said the envoy was called in "urgently" to lodge "solemn representations over the Philippines' deliberate provocation and attack on Chinese Coast Guard law enforcement personnel at Ren'ai Reef", referring to Second Thomas Shoal, a flashpoint in the South China Sea.

The incident marks the latest escalation in tensions between the nations over the contested waters. The US has already condemned what it called "dangerous" Chinese actions in the clash with the Philippine navy, the Philippine Daily Inquirer reports.

The newly-recognised presiding officer has moved to defer approval of the trial journal, saying the court is awaiting formal manifestations from some senator-judges before the record can be adopted.

The chair indicated, however, that the journal would be put to a vote before today's session ends — regardless of whether all anticipated manifestations have been submitted by that point.

The development signals that at least some senator-judges intend to place formal statements on the record early in the proceedings.

The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte has been formally called to order at the Philippine Senate, which is sitting as an Impeachment Court.

The session opened at approximately 2:01 PM with a minute of silent prayer led by Senator-Judge Panfilo Lacson, who called for "humility, wisdom, neutrality, and fairness" before proceedings began.

Senator-judges in maroon robes are seated on the bench. The Philippine Senate seal is displayed in the chamber as the court prepares to take the roll.

More now on the Port of Lucena modernisation announced today. Beyond the passenger terminal's seating expansion from 607 to 928, the Palace briefing detailed additional new facilities: nursing and prayer rooms for travellers, upgraded ticketing counters for faster transactions, and solar panel installations aimed at lowering electricity costs.

The briefing described the Lucena upgrade as "isang bahagi lamang ng mas malawak na modernization ng ating mga pantalan sa Southern Luzon" ["only one part of the broader modernisation of our ports in Southern Luzon"], with Transportation Secretary Giovanni Lopez accompanying the President on the terminal inspection.