The Wire

In laying out why the Lascañas affidavit was being shown to witness Matibag, prosecution counsel offered its most pointed formulation yet of what the special task force was investigating.

The document, counsel said, was "part of the consideration of the special task force in investigating on the threat by the President to the life of the President."

The on-screen display at the hearing showed the affidavit open to sections referencing 2012–2013 Tokhang operations in Davao City under then-police colonel Ronald 'Bato' Dela Rosa. The names of Inday Sara Duterte-Carpio and Rodrigo Roa Duterte were also visible in the senator feed on screen.

The battle over the Lascañas affidavit sharpened further when counsel for the respondent attacked the physical integrity of the specific copy being used in court.

Pointing to page 186 of the affidavit, defence counsel told the tribunal the signature was not a wet signature but a printed copy, and that the document was entirely unnotarized. "This is a mere scrap of paper, honor," counsel said.

The prosecution pushed back, insisting the document was being presented only to confirm that it formed part of the special task force's investigation — not to prove the truth of its contents. The court had already ruled the affidavit could be used solely to establish a 'pattern of violence'.

After a prolonged dispute over which copy of the Lascañas affidavit should be put to the witness, the court has resolved the impasse: Matibag will testify using his own copy of the document, even though that copy is missing the page containing an attached USB drive that appears in the pre-marked exhibit.

The court ordered that the discrepancy be preserved — a certified true copy is to be furnished to defence counsel — with any differences to be explored either during cross-examination or in later proceedings.

Defence counsel took exception, noting that what Matibag identified in open court was his own incomplete copy, making it improper to then rely on the separately marked exhibit. The court acknowledged the continuing objection but directed the prosecution to move on.

Witness Director Matibag has told the impeachment court the precise portions of the Arturo Lascañas affidavit he is relying on to establish what the prosecution calls a "pattern of violence" — Paragraphs 270, 270B, and 270D.

The court allowed the prosecution to sub-mark those specific paragraphs for the record, but reiterated its earlier ruling: the excerpts may be entered only as to their tenor — to show that the affidavit exists and what it says — and not as proof that its contents are true.

Defence counsel maintained a continuing objection throughout, arguing Matibag is incompetent to testify on an affidavit he did not execute and has no personal knowledge of.

With the court's ruling in place, the prosecution moved to direct Matibag to the specific portions of the Lascañas affidavit relevant to his earlier testimony.

In Filipino, the prosecutor pointed Matibag to the sections referencing Oplan Tokhang, an alleged hit order, and the threat to the President — the passages Matibag had earlier cited in open court — asking him to confirm these were the portions of the Arturo Lascañas affidavit now before him.

The defence immediately objected, arguing that because Matibag did not execute the affidavit and has no personal knowledge of its contents, he is incompetent to answer. The court overruled, consistent with its earlier ruling allowing the witness to testify only to the fact of inclusion — not to substance.

The impeachment court has resolved the prolonged dispute over the Lascañas affidavit, issuing a clear limiting instruction as testimony resumed.

The presiding officer ruled that witness Director Matibag may use his own copy of the affidavit — the version that does not contain the disputed USB attachment page — but only for a narrow purpose: to establish that he included the document as part of his investigation, and to demonstrate an alleged "pattern of violence" against Vice President Sara Duterte.

Critically, the court sustained the defence's objection that the document "speaks for itself," barring the prosecution from asking Matibag to speak to the truth of the affidavit's contents — a significant limitation on how far the testimony can go. The defence recorded a continuing objection.

A further irregularity emerged in the dispute over the Lascañas affidavit copies: the pre-marked prosecution exhibit carries a stamp and a signature, but the signature bears no name.

The prosecution flagged the detail as a correction for the record mid-hearing. The presiding officer noted it without prejudice, ordering that the two versions — Matibag's copy and the marked exhibit — be formally compared, either during cross-examination or at a later stage of proceedings.

The prosecution formally confirmed on the record that the copy of the Lascañas affidavit produced by Director Matibag does not contain the page with an attached USB drive — a page present in the pre-marked prosecution exhibit.

"The copy of Director Matibag does not contain a page with an attached USB — that's correct. It's incomplete," the presiding officer stated, after both sides examined the documents at the hearing desk.

The court ruled that the prosecution may proceed using the pre-marked copy to confront Matibag. Defence counsel immediately objected, arguing that Matibag had identified *his own copy* in open court and was therefore not competent to testify on a document he did not produce or participate in marking.

Even as prosecutors successfully showed the Lascañas affidavit had been pre-marked as Exhibit P-210-1-W, the defence shifted to a secondary objection: the document was marked during pre-trial under a different article from the one under which the prosecution now seeks to use it.

"Such exhibit was indeed marked but it was marked under Article 2," defence counsel told the panel — signalling that the fight over the affidavit's admissibility is far from settled, even with a pre-trial exhibit number on the record.

A fresh dispute erupted in the hearing over the Lascañas affidavit after defence counsel pointed out that the pre-marked prosecution exhibit (P-210-1-W) and the copy produced in court by Director Matibag appear to be two different documents.

Defence counsel told the panel that the marked copy contains an additional page with annexes — including what was described as a USB attachment — that does not appear in Matibag's copy. "It appears, your honor, that the two documents are not the same," counsel said on the record.

The prosecution confirmed the discrepancy but maintained that Matibag's copy was his own personal copy and did not represent the prosecution's marked set. Prosecutors said they were prepared to use the pre-marked exhibit to confront the witness instead. A further complication was raised: defence counsel noted that the marked copy bears a 'certified true copy' stamp that was not signed by anyone.

The defence's claim that the Lascañas affidavit had never been marked during pre-trial crumbled on the floor of the hearing after prosecution counsel confirmed the document was already on the record as Exhibit P-2-10-1-W.

But respondent's counsel immediately filed a new objection, telling the panel: "Such exhibit was indeed marked but it was marked under Article 2" — appearing to argue the exhibit's scope or admissibility is still at issue on technical grounds.

The hearing panel instructed both sides to be furnished copies of the document as the dispute over its status continued.

A defence challenge that the Lascañas affidavit had not been marked during the pre-trial conference was swiftly answered by prosecution counsel, who told the court the document had already been formally marked as Exhibit P-210-1-W.

The disclosure came after defence counsel interrupted proceedings, arguing the document produced by the witness had no standing before the court. Prosecution counsel responded that the marking was on the record — appearing to neutralise the procedural objection.

Pushing back against the defence objection, prosecution counsel argued the affidavit of former police officer Arturo Lascañas should be admitted as a "declaration against interest" — a legal doctrine that allows out-of-court statements when the declarant's own words incriminate himself.

"He's saying in the affidavit na siya ay hitman, na siya ay bahagi ng Davao Death Squad," prosecution counsel told the court ["that he is a hitman, that he is a member of the Davao Death Squad"]. Under that doctrine, counsel argued, the statement can be used even against a third party — in this case, Vice President Sara Duterte, the respondent.

The defence had objected moments earlier that the witness was "not competent to testify" on an affidavit he did not himself execute.

A sharp legal clash broke out at the hearing after the prosecution moved to introduce the affidavit of Arturo Lascañas — described as a self-confessed former Davao Death Squad (DDS) member — as part of its pattern-of-violence evidence.

Counsel for the respondent objected immediately, arguing that Matibag is "not competent to answer" or testify on an affidavit he did not himself execute. The presiding officer was heard ruling that it "is of no mo—" before the transcript cut off, suggesting the affidavit's admissibility remains unresolved.

The prosecution countered that the Lascañas affidavit qualifies as a declaration against interest — the declarant, it argued, admitted in the document to being a hitman and a member of the DDS — and that such a declaration may be considered even with respect to a third party, in this case VP Sara Duterte, whom Matibag's task force named as a respondent.

More now on Matibag and the US Secret Service-derived methodology his task force applied.

Testifying before the hearing, Matibag enumerated the five standards his team used to assess whether there was a credible threat to the President's life: (1) pattern of violence, (2) identity and identifying characteristics of the subject, (3) the significance of the incident, (4) capability and capacity of the named subject, and (5) motive and intent of the personality.

The framework, he said, was drawn from the Protective Intelligence methodology of the US Secret Service — the same criteria, he testified, that guided the task force's investigation into the alleged threat against the President.

More now on the pattern-of-violence strand of the task force's probe: Matibag told the hearing that investigators obtained the affidavit of a former police officer identified as a DDS member, who alleged that Vice President Sara Duterte was herself involved in — and was described as one of the architects of — Oplan Tokhang.

The same affidavit, Matibag said, alleged that instead of being shot, some subjects were placed inside drum barrels or other containers — away from media — and killed, their deaths later attributed to quarry accidents or other causes. He characterised the account as highly relevant to the task force's pattern-of-violence analysis.

Matibag said the affidavit is in the possession of the task force and is part of the evidence under review. The claims are allegations and have not been independently verified.

A news broadcast clip dated Davao City, July 2011 was shown on screen during the Senate hearing as Matibag walked through what he described as evidence of a "pattern of violence" — one of the five criteria his task force used to assess threats to the President's life.

Matibag told the panel the incident involved a court sheriff who was attempting to carry out a lawful demolition order — something he said did not sit well with the subject of the investigation. A video was then played showing the sheriff being struck.

The 2011 clip is among a body of what the task force called open-source intelligence gathered to establish a pattern of conduct, Matibag said.

Questioning at the Senate hearing moved into a distinct new phase, with counsel explicitly directing Matibag to address the NBI Special Task Force's investigation into the alleged threat to the President's life — framed separately from the earlier lines of questioning on incitement and grave threats.

The pivot signals that the prosecution is building toward what it considers the core allegation: not merely that inflammatory statements were made, but that a concrete plan against the President existed and was being probed by the task force.

The NBI Special Task Force assessed the threat to President Marcos's life using a framework drawn from the US Secret Service's Protective Intelligence methodology, witness Matibag told the hearing.

Matibag said the approach sets out five criteria for evaluating whether a threat to a known personality is credible. Two criteria had been named by the time questioning continued: pattern of violence, and identity and identifying characteristics of those involved in the incident. A third criterion — described in the transcript as the significance of those involved — was being elicited as the session continued.

The invocation of a formal US intelligence-community standard is the most detailed public explanation yet of how the task force built its threat assessment against the Vice President and others.

Asked how he could identify the signature on the affidavit as belonging to Agent Edgar Apollonio, Matibag said he had summoned the agent directly to confirm it.

"Siya po ay aking ipinatawag at tinanong ko kung siya ang gumawa at kung lagda niya po ito," Matibag testified ["I personally called him in and asked him whether he made it and whether that was his signature"]. He added that he had also tasked Apollonio with authenticating other documents over time, making him familiar with the agent's signature.

The testimony is aimed at establishing an unbroken chain of custody for the digital evidence at the centre of the case against Vice President Sara Duterte.

Moments after Matibag confirmed receipt of the authentication document, prosecution counsel formally asked the tribunal to admit the Affidavit of Authentication of Digital Evidence — previously marked as Exhibit P-431 — and to allow assisting counsel to present it to the witness.

A legal document headed *'AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHENTICATION OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE, Republic of the Philippines, City of Pasay'* was displayed on screen as the request was made.

The exhibit, if admitted, would formally place Agent Edgar Apollonio's authentication of the Sebastian Duterte video into the hearing record.

Matibag told the hearing he directed the task force to preserve and authenticate the April 12 video of Mayor Sebastian Duterte as soon as he assessed it would be "material" to the investigation.

He named Agent Edgar Apollonio of the NBI's Cyber Crime Division as the officer who carried out the authentication — and said the resulting affidavit was transmitted to his office and received by him personally.

The move signals the NBI is treating the video as a formal evidentiary exhibit, not merely background intelligence, in the probe into the alleged plot against the President.

Matibag told the hearing he had not yet assumed office as NBI director when the original charges of grave threat and inciting to sedition were filed before the Department of Justice in February 2025.

He said he was briefed upon taking over that monitoring, consultation and surveillance of threats to the President had already been ongoing across various NBI units. It was only after he formally assumed the directorship that he established the Special Task Force — constituted on April 16 — to focus specifically on the threats now at the centre of the impeachment proceedings.

The timeline is significant: it establishes that the case's early-stage investigation predates Matibag's tenure, potentially pre-empting defense lines that the probe was initiated or shaped by the current director.

A small but pointed clarification from Matibag on the rally that has featured prominently in his testimony: when pressed on the Rage Coalition Rally, he told the panel that "RAGE" is in fact an acronym — "hindi po rage" ["it is not 'rage'"], he said, adding the full meaning puts it "somewhat far" from the plain reading of the word.

Matibag did not spell out the acronym in this portion of testimony, but the point matters to the task force's framing: the rally, whatever its name means, is described as a venue where threats against the President were amplified before an audience that included, he says, at least one sitting senator and other prominent regional figures.

An earlier post on this blog reported Matibag citing "600,000-plus" live viewers of VP Sara Duterte's threats broadcast. In testimony a short while later, Matibag gave a more precise figure: "691,000 ang nanood sa live broadcast" ["691,000 watched the live broadcast"].

The earlier post understated the number. The figure now on the record is 691,000 live viewers — the number Matibag says the task force used to assess the "kinetic force" reach of the threats.

Matibag testified that among the participants the task force identified at the Rage Coalition Rally were "kilalang personalidad" — ["known personalities"] — including at least one sitting senator.

"May senador din po na nandoon," he told the court ["There was also a senator present there"], adding that other prominent individuals were also in attendance. He did not name the senator on the record at this point in the testimony, and the court was still in the process of taking the answer when the broadcast segment cut.

The task force has been monitoring rally participants as part of its broader assessment that threats to the President now rise to the level of a national security concern.

Witness Matibag told the court that the Rage Coalition Rally broadcast reached more than 600,000 live viewers — and that this reach is precisely what he means by the "kinetic force" set in motion by the Vice President's statements.

"Dun na pupapasok ang tinatawag kong kinetic force," he said — ["That is where what I call the kinetic force enters"] — arguing that hundreds of thousands of people watching could be moved to reactions that threaten law and order.

The figure is the first specific metric the task force has offered to quantify how far the alleged threat cascaded beyond the Vice President's original statements.

Prosecutors pressed Matibag on the specific reason Mayor Sebastian Duterte's video was included in the Special Task Force's national security assessment — a question the presiding judge noted had already been partially answered.

Matibag's response tied back to the "kinetic force" framing: that because the mayor and the vice president belong to the same family, and both made statements referencing the President's head, the task force treats their statements as a connected and escalating pattern rather than isolated incidents.

The task force's mandate, he said, is to monitor all threats emerging in real time — including those appearing on social media, at rallies, and in public statements — that have risen to the level of a national security concern.

Witness Matibag introduced a new analytical concept on the stand, testifying that VP Sara Duterte's public statements produced what he called a 'kinetic force' effect — causing others who heard her threats to make threats of their own.

"Ang naging pagbabanta ng ating vice-president ay nagkaroon po na tinatawag natin na epekto — ito sa kinetic force — na kung saan ang mga nakarinig ng kanyang pagbabanta ay gumagayon namin at nagbabanta," he said. ["The threats made by our vice president produced what we call an effect — this kinetic force — wherein those who heard her threats likewise acted and made threats themselves."]

Matibag noted the effect was especially pronounced among family members, which he said is precisely why the Special Task Force was monitoring not just the VP but a broader circle of individuals. Prosecutors then asked him to define what "kinetic force" means — his answer is expected momentarily.

Witness Matibag drew a sharp line between two separate investigations into the threats against President Marcos: the NBI's November 2024 inquiry, which he said examined ordinary criminal offences — grave threat and inciting to sedition — and forwarded findings to the Department of Justice, and the current Special Task Force probe.

"Malaki po ang pagkakaiba," Matibag told the court ["There is a big difference"]. The NBI, he said, investigated the matter as standard criminal violations. The task force, by contrast, is treating it as something that has gone further.

"Hindi na ito banta, kundi isang plano... na patayin ang Pangulo ng Pilipinas," he testified ["This is no longer a threat — it is a plan to kill the President of the Philippines"], adding that the matter has "transcended to a national security issue."