The Wire

Pressing his testimony further, Director Matibag framed the alleged plot in the broadest possible terms, telling the court the task force now views the threat as ongoing.

"Ito ay serioso, aktibo at patuloy na umiiral, nagiging banta na rin po sa ating pambansang seguridad," he said — ["This is serious, active and continuously present — it has become a threat to our national security"] — adding that any threat to the President's safety is, by definition, a threat to the nation.

Matibag also signalled that the Special Task Force investigation — which he said began in April 2025 — differs significantly from a separate NBI inquiry completed in November 2024, though the court had not yet heard his full account of those differences as the transcript was cut.

Witness Director Matibag told the impeachment court that, in the task force's assessment, Vice President Sara Duterte had moved beyond words to action.

"Sa pagkatantigin po namin dito, ay inuruso ng ating Vice Presidente ang kanyang planong pagpatay sa Pangulo ng Pilipinas," he said — ["In our assessment, the Vice President had already advanced her plan to kill the President of the Philippines"] — pointing to her admitted approach of a person she asked to carry out the killing, who subsequently came forward.

The senator-judges allowed the answer to stand after the defense moved, and failed, to have it struck from the record. The court ruled the testimony would remain "for the appreciation of the senator-judges as to the weight they will give."

Counsel for the respondent moved to have Matibag's answer about an alleged approach to kill the President struck from the record, arguing it was non-responsive to the question asked.

The presiding officer overruled the objection and denied the motion to strike, ruling that the testimony "shall remain in the records for the appreciation of the senator-judges as to the weight they will give" to that portion of the witness's evidence.

The ruling means the claim — that a person was approached to carry out the killing and subsequently came forward — is now formally part of the trial transcript before the senator-judges.

In a significant escalation of his testimony, witness Director Matibag told the impeachment court that the threat against the President went beyond words — alleging that someone had actually been contacted and asked to carry out the killing.

"Noong November 23, binanggit po ng ating Presidente na may kinausap para pumatay sa ating pangulo at pumalag siya," he said ["On November 23, our President mentioned that someone had been approached to kill our President, and that person came out/refused"].

Matibag said the Special Task Force he leads concluded the threat is "serioso, aktibo at patuloy na umiiral" — serious, active and continuing — and now amounts to a threat to national security.

Prosecutors asked the court to play a second, distinct portion of Exhibit P411 — the VP Sara Duterte October 18, 2024 press briefing — this time at timestamp 1:36:52 to 1:36:58, to isolate the specific moment she said: "I imagine myself cutting his head."

The clip was played before senator-judges. On the screen visible in the chamber, the Facebook video player showed the VPSD Press Briefing recording, with VP Sara in a white shirt seated before Philippine flags.

Matibag confirmed that this segment was the basis for the task force's finding that her statement mirrored the language used by Mayor Sebastian Duterte at the Davao rally — the parallel the prosecution is presenting as central to its case.

Witness Director Matibag told senator-judges that the Special Task Force of the Ombudsman drew a firm investigative conclusion from the two videos played in court: that the threats against the President's life originated within a single family.

In Tagalog, he said: "Kapansin-pansin po na may kita natin na nanggagaling sa isang pamilya ang pagbabanta." ["It is notable that what we see is that the threats are coming from one family."]

The statement followed back-to-back playbacks in open court of a clip from the April 12 Davao rally — in which Mayor Sebastian Duterte said only one head was still needed, that of Bongbong Marcos — and two separate segments of VP Sara Duterte's October 18, 2024 press conference (Exhibit P411), covering timestamps 1:35:57–1:36:10 and 1:36:52–1:36:58, the latter containing the line "I imagine myself cutting his head."

Witness Director Matibag explained to the impeachment court why prosecutors drew a line between the Davao mayor's rally remark and VP Sara Duterte's October 2024 press conference statements.

"Yung pang video na yan ay aming pang nai-compara sa naging pahayag ng ating vice-presidente na kung saan nag-re-refer din sa pagtanggal ng ulo ng ating Presidente," he said ["That video was what we compared to the statement of our Vice President, who also referred to removing the head of our President"].

Matibag said the side-by-side comparison formed a key part of the Special Task Force investigation into what he has described as a credible threat against the life of President Marcos.

Testifying after the video was played, witness Director Matibag told the court that the October 18, 2024 press conference contained two distinct statements by the Vice President about removing the President's head.

"Sinabi niya gusto kong tanggalin ang ulo niya," he said — ["She said she wanted to cut off his head"] — and separately: "sinabi rin po nyang 'imagine cutting his head'" ["she also said 'imagine cutting his head'"].

Matibag said the task force drew a direct comparison between those statements and the Davao mayor's rally line — "Isang ulo na lang ang kailangan namin, ang ulo ni Bongbong Marcos" ["We only need one more head — the head of Bongbong Marcos"] — as part of its assessment that the threat to the President's life had escalated from a warning to, in his earlier testimony, "a real plan."

The witness confirmed the precise language attributed to the Davao mayor in the April 12 rally video, now played as evidence before the Senate impeachment court.

"Sinabi niya na isang ulo lang naman ang kailangan namin — ang ulo ni Bongbong Marcos," the witness testified ["He said we only need one head — the head of Bongbong Marcos"].

The investigator told the court he drew a direct comparison between that line and VP Sara Duterte's own October 2024 statement — "Gusto kong tanggalin ang ulo niya" and "imagine cutting his head" — as part of the special task force's analysis of the threat to the President's life.

NBI Director Matibag testified that the task force's comparison of the Davao mayor's rally line to Vice President Sara Duterte's own words centred on a specific public appearance.

"Ito po yung kanyang press conference ng October 18 ng 2024 kung saan sinabi niya gusto kong tanggalin ang ulo niya," Matibag said under direct examination. ["This was her press conference of October 18, 2024, where she said, 'I want to cut off his head.'"]

Matibag added that the VP also used the phrase "imagine cutting his head" at the same event — testimony that the prosecution presented as the evidentiary link between the mayor's rally cry and the VP's own recorded statements.

NBI Director Matibag told the impeachment court that investigators did not treat the Davao City mayor's rally statement in isolation — they compared it directly to a separate statement by Vice President Sara Duterte that also referenced removing the President's head.

"Yung pang video na yan ay aming pang nai-compare sa naging pahayag ng ating Vice President na kung saan may rin din kami ang video na ang ating Vice President... nag-re-refer din sa pagtanggal ng ulo ng ating Pangulong Presidente," Matibag said ["We compared that video to the statement of our Vice President, for which we also have video of the Vice President... also referring to the removal of the head of our President"].

Matibag said investigators saw the convergence of the two statements — from the mayor and from VP Sara Duterte — as a significant pattern in establishing the relevance of the Rage Coalition rally to the broader threat investigation.

The presiding officer issued a notable procedural directive during Matibag's testimony, instructing senator-judges to hold their interventions until after direct examination, cross-examination, redirect and re-cross have all been completed.

The chair said the rule could be set aside only for matters of "urgent, administrative, or procedural concern" — signalling an intent to run the proceedings more like a formal trial than a legislative inquiry.

"This is more of a trial really than merely seeking clarificatory questions," the chair said from the bench.

More now on Director Matibag's testimony on what hardened the NBI's assessment of the alleged plot.

"Ang aming investigasyon nga nere ito mawid na sa indibanta kung di isang plano talaga na patayin po ang ating pangulo ng Pilipinas," she told the hearing — ["Our investigation showed this had moved beyond a mere threat; it is a real plan to kill the President of the Philippines."].

Matibag also reiterated that open-source intelligence indicated the Vice President had spoken directly with a would-be assassin, and that the individual had agreed to carry out the killing — a claim she says was a key factor in escalating the matter to a national-security level.

Going beyond the literal quote, Matibag offered her law-enforcement reading of the mayor's language at the April 12 rally, saying the use of the word she characterised as expressing rage, anger and spite — combined with the public profile of the person delivering it — pointed to a personality capable of "destabilisasyon sa ating pamahalaan" ["destabilisation of our government"].

"Makikita natin ang personalidad na tumutulik sa at naglalabas ng destabilisasyon po sa ating panggobierno ngayon," she said ["We can see the personality that is fixated on and actively projecting destabilisation against our government today"].

She added that this pattern was consistent across different individuals she had observed, all of whom she said posed a risk of "kaguluhan" [unrest] to the country. The court allowed her to consult her notes before continuing.

NBI Director Matibag told the hearing that a specific live-broadcast rally — which she identified as a 'rage collision' event on April 12 — was among the events formally cited in the whereas clauses of Administrative Order No. 11 as justification for creating the special task force.

She said the Davao City mayor made a remark at the rally that the NBI treated as a significant threat indicator: "Isang ulo lang naman ang kailangan namin at yan ay ang ulo ni Bongbong Marcos," she said, quoting the mayor ["All we need is one head, and that is the head of Bongbong Marcos"].

Matibag said that statement was factored into the decision to issue the administrative order. A defence counsel objected to the line of questioning as irrelevant, but the presiding officer overruled the objection and directed Matibag to proceed.

Matibag said NBI analysts monitoring open-source intelligence — publicly available online material — found evidence that the Vice President had herself stated she had spoken with a would-be assassin.

"Sinabi mismo na siya ay kumausap na ng papatay at pumayag ang papatay na yan sa ating pangulo ng Pilipinas," Matibag testified ["She herself said she had already spoken with a hitman, and that hitman agreed to kill our President of the Philippines"].

Matibag said this open-source finding, combined with the Davao City rally broadcast, formed part of the factual basis the NBI relied upon in determining that the threat had crossed from a criminal matter into a national security concern.

Witness Matibag told the hearing that a live-broadcast rally on April 12 was among the specific events that pushed the NBI to issue Administrative Order No. 11 and stand up the special task force.

Matibag quoted what she said was a public statement by the Mayor of Davao City at a rally she described as a "rage" event: "Isang ulo lang naman ang kailangan namin at yan ay ang ulo ni Bongbong Marcos," she said, reading from the record ["We only need one head, and that is the head of Bongbong Marcos"].

Matibag said the broadcast of that statement was explicitly incorporated into the whereas clauses of AO No. 11 as one of the factual grounds for creating the task force.

NBI Director Matibag described her own oversight role in the assassination-plot task force, telling the court she maintained continuous communication with her office throughout the investigation.

"Patuloy na pakikipag-ugnayan sa Office ng Director, patuloy na pag-uulat," she said — ["Continuous coordination with the Office of the Director, continuous reporting"] — adding that whenever something required immediate action, it was flagged directly to the Office of the Director.

The detail establishes that the task force was not operating independently but reported upward to Matibag herself, placing the NBI's top official at the centre of the probe.

More now on NBI Director Matibag explaining the reasoning behind forming the special task force.

"Ang malinaw na banta at planong pagpatay po sa ating pangulo — para sa amin sa law enforcement, ito ay nagtransit sa banta po sa ating national security," she said on the stand. ["The clear threat and plan to kill our President — for us in law enforcement, this has transitioned into a threat to our national security."]

She went further, arguing that any threat to the President's life would trigger "kaguluhan, kagalig at destabilisasyon" — disorder, unrest and destabilisation — of the government and the nation. The testimony comes as AO No. 11, the formal order creating the task force, remains displayed on the shared screen.

Matibag also hinted at specific events she personally witnessed that confirmed the reality of the threat, though she had not yet detailed them at the time of this post.

Matibag explained on air why the NBI formed a dedicated task force rather than routing the case through normal channels.

"Ang pagpupo ng task force ay yung mga immediate na pangangailangan na ating tugunan," he said — ["Forming a task force addresses the immediate needs we must respond to"] — adding that the scope of the investigation was not limited to a single location and that the seriousness of the threat required it.

"Ang pangaseriosong banta, katulad ng banta sa ating pangulo, ganito — ang task force po ang pag-eramdam namin na kinakailangan," Matibag said ["For an extremely serious threat, like the threat against our President — this is what we felt a task force required"].

NBI Director Matibag testified that the Cybercrime Division was included in the assassination-plot task force because threat intelligence against the President increasingly travels through social media platforms.

"Marami po ngayon na banta na pumapasok mo sa ating pangulo, mamamagitan po pag gamit ng social media platform at ang CCD po sila po ang may karanasan at kaalaman po na yan na sapat para bantayan po ang mga bantang papasok," he said. ["Many of the threats now reaching the President come through the use of social media platforms, and the Cybercrime Division has the experience and knowledge needed to monitor these incoming threats."]

The division's composition — including National Capital Region, Cybercrime Division (CCD), Organized Transnational Crime Division (OTCD), Technical Intelligence Division (TID), and Digital Forensic Laboratory (DFL) — was visible on the Section 2 slide of Administrative Order No. 11 shown on screen during testimony.

Matibag has given the impeachment court the first detailed breakdown of who sits inside the NBI's special assassination-plot task force created under Administrative Order No. 11.

The unit is led by the Deputy Director for Operations as team leader, with two assistant team leaders drawn from the Assistant Directors for Investigation and Intelligence. Its membership spans five NBI divisions: the National Capital Region Division, the Cyber Crime Division (CCD), the Organized Transnational Crime Division (OTCD), the Technical Intelligence Division (TID), and the Digital Forensic Laboratory (DFL).

Asked why the NCR Division was included, Matibag explained the logic: the President's residence — which he referred to as the primary location requiring surveillance for the threat to the President's safety — falls within the National Capital Region. The document listing the task force composition was displayed on screen as Matibag spoke.

With the document now before the court, the lead prosecutor asked Matibag to explain the significance of standing up a dedicated task force for the assassination-threat investigation.

Matibag's answer echoed testimony he gave earlier: "Napakahalaga," he said — "ang ginawang banta ng vice-presidente, hindi banta, kundi isang plano para sa pagpatay sa ating pangulo." ["It is very important — what the Vice-President did was not just a threat, but a plan to kill the President."]

He added that the NBI treats the matter as touching national security, not merely as a criminal complaint — a framing the prosecution appears to be building its case around.

The impeachment trial has moved to the formal tendering of evidence. Administrative Order No. 11, dated 16 April 2026 and signed by NBI Director Atty. Melvin A. Matibag, was flashed on the Senate screen and shown to the witness for confirmation.

The document, marked as prosecution Exhibit P-429, formally establishes the NBI special task force created to investigate threats on the life of President Marcos, the First Lady, and the Speaker of the House.

Matibag confirmed on the stand that the signature on the order is his — making the document, and his direct role in creating the task force, part of the official trial record.

Elaborating on why the NBI formed a dedicated task force, Director Matibag told the Senate court that the agency views the Vice President's alleged threat through a broader lens.

"Hindi banta, kundi isang plano para po sa pagpatay sa ating pangulo. And that is a threat to the President which we consider also na-treated po sa ating national security," he said ["Not a threat, but a plan to kill our President. And that is a threat to the President which we also consider treated as a matter of our national security"].

The characterisation elevates the NBI's framing of the case beyond ordinary criminal procedure — a significant signal of how seriously the bureau says it is treating the investigation.

The impeachment court is now displaying Administrative Order No. 11, dated April 16, on the main screen — the document Matibag cited as the legal basis for creating the NBI special task force to investigate alleged threats on the lives of President Marcos, the First Lady, and House Speaker Romualdez.

Prosecution counsel requested that the order — previously marked as Exhibit P-429 — be formally flashed for the court, and both prosecution and defence counsel were allowed to approach the witness to confirm and validate the document.

Matibag earlier told the court that the threat from the Vice President is "hindi banta... kundi isang plano para po sa pagpatay sa ating pangulo" ["not a threat... but a plan to kill our President"] — a framing the documentary evidence is now being used to underpin.

Matibag disclosed that the NBI formalised its special task force — created to investigate the alleged plot to kill the President, the First Lady and the House Speaker — through Administrative Order No. 11, signed on 16 April of the current year.

Prosecution counsel asked Matibag to identify a copy of the order on the record, the first time a specific document anchoring the investigation has been named and dated in open court.

The disclosure gives the defence a concrete instrument to contest and gives senators a paper trail to examine as the trial moves toward its evidentiary phase.

NBI Director Matibag sharpened the bureau's characterisation of Vice President Sara Duterte's public statements during testimony at the impeachment trial, telling the court the agency does not view the remarks as a mere threat.

"Hindi banta, kundi isang plano para po sa pagpatay sa ating pangulo," he said ["Not a threat, but a plan to kill our President"] — adding that the NBI also treats it as a threat to national security.

The distinction matters legally: framing the VP's statements as an operational plot, rather than a rhetorical outburst, is the basis on which the NBI built its special task force investigation.

NBI Director Matibag told the impeachment court that Vice President Sara Duterte remains the subject of an ongoing NBI investigation into an alleged plan to kill the President, the First Lady, and the Speaker of the House.

He described it as a "continuing investigation" — signalling the NBI probe is still active and has not yet been closed or referred.

The disclosure came as the prosecution moved past preliminary questions about Matibag's qualifications and began pressing him on his direct knowledge of the respondent.

NBI Director Matibag formally identified Vice President Sara Duterte as the respondent in the impeachment trial, stating that she is also a named subject in criminal cases filed by the NBI's Cyber Crime Division.

He said the charges — Grave Threat and Inciting to Sedition — are currently pending at the Department of Justice.

Matibag said he reviewed the cases upon taking office: "Natisa po sa mga kasong aking nakita rito ang respondent po rito ay aking pong busy Presidente kung saan po siya kinasuhan ng aming Cyber Crime Division ng Grave Threat at Inciting to Sedition na sa kasalukuyan po ngayon nakabindin sa Department of Justice." ["Among the cases I found, the respondent here — the Vice President — was charged by our Cyber Crime Division with Grave Threat and Inciting to Sedition, which are currently pending at the Department of Justice."]