The Wire

The prosecution witness went beyond citing legal grounds for withholding the identities of persons of interest — he physically produced what he described as NBI task force reports tagged as confidential, holding them up as evidence that the investigation materials cannot be shared publicly.

"Nandirito po sa akin ang mga report ng task force, tag as confidential," he said ["The task force reports are here with me, tagged as confidential"], adding that disclosure would also compromise "the institution of the NBI" itself — a fourth rationale he had not previously stated on the record.

The witness also invoked Memorandum Order No. 15 of the Office of the President and the Administrative Code, which he said prohibit the public release of information classified as confidential, secret, or top secret.

The chair of the impeachment court declared a 15-minute recess at approximately 4:03 PM, bringing the direct examination of the prosecution witness to a close after roughly two hours of testimony.

Cross-examination by counsel for the respondent — representing Vice President Sara Duterte — is scheduled to begin when proceedings resume at 4:18 PM.

The witness was excused from the witness box for the duration of the break.

The NBI witness laid out three concrete reasons for refusing to identify the persons of interest in the alleged assassination-for-hire plot against the President, the First Lady, and the former Speaker.

First, he said, disclosure would compromise the continuing and open investigation. Second, it would endanger what he called human intelligence assets — informants on the ground supplying the task force with information. Third, he cited the right to privacy of the individuals concerned, as well as a provision of the Administrative Code that bars the public release of information classified as confidential, secret, or top secret — a classification, he said, that applies to the task force reports he was holding in his hands.

"Hindi ko po ito pwede ibahagi basta-basta sa public," he told the court ["I cannot simply share this with the public"], adding that the exemption also falls under Memorandum Order No. 15 of the Office of the President.

Pressed on what exactly "persons of interest" means in the context of the task force probe, the witness drew a careful distinction: those identified are not necessarily the individuals the Vice President allegedly hired, but people who could point investigators toward that person — or who may themselves turn out to be that contact.

"Itong mga taong ito ay maaaring magbigay ng impormasyon o makapangtukoy sa identity ng taong kinausap, o sila mismo ang kinausap," he said ["These individuals may be able to provide information or point to the identity of the person who was spoken to — or they themselves may be the ones who were approached"].

The clarification came after senators on the panel also pressed for names, with the witness acknowledging the bench's interest before again declining to disclose.

The witness at the Philippine Senate hearing laid out a detailed justification for refusing to publicly identify the "persons of interest" linked to the alleged plot against the President, First Lady, and former Speaker.

He cited three grounds: disclosure would compromise the ongoing investigation; it would endanger human intelligence assets on the ground; and it would violate the privacy rights of individuals who have not yet been formally charged.

"Makukompromiso po ang ating imbestigasyon... malagay po sa alanganin ang ating mga tinatawag na importanteng assets na sa ground na nagbibigay po sa atin ng human intel," he said ["It would compromise our investigation... it would endanger our so-called important assets on the ground who provide us with human intelligence"].

When pressed to identify the persons of interest by name, the NBI witness declined on the record.

"Kinalulungkut ko po pero sa aking katayuan bilang [investigation director], hindi ko maaaring isiwalat," he said ["I regret it, but given my position as [investigation director], I cannot disclose" the identities].

The refusal drew attention in the chamber but was not immediately challenged by the presiding officer.

The NBI witness told the Senate hearing that investigators have already identified what they are calling "persons of interest" in their probe into who Vice President Sara Duterte allegedly hired to kill the President, the First Lady, and the former Speaker.

The witness explained that these individuals may be able to point investigators toward the identity of the person the VP allegedly spoke with — or may themselves be that person. "We already have established persons of interest," he said, adding that those individuals could provide leads or directly identify the alleged contact.

The development marks a concrete advance in the investigation beyond the earlier stage of simply seeking to identify the alleged hire.

The special task force is not only monitoring threats but is actively working to identify the specific individual the Vice President allegedly approached to carry out the killing of the President, the witness told the hearing.

He said the task force's mandate includes "hanapin at i-identify kung sino ang kinausap ng Vice-Presidente para patayin ang ating Pangulo" ["to find and identify who the Vice President spoke with in order to kill our President"].

The witness said investigators had already begun pursuing leads on the identity of that person. The allegation against Vice President Sara Duterte has not been responded to on the broadcast.

A witness at the hearing described a specific recorded incident that investigators say heightened concern for the President's safety: CCTV footage from a presidential public event allegedly captured an individual carrying a firearm, with the witness stating the reference was to "a bullet to the head of the President."

The witness said in Filipino: "May video na nakuha ng CCTV na may nakakasang baril at ang reference din po ay... ang bala lang sa ulo ng Presidente" ["There is a video captured by CCTV showing someone with a firearm, and the reference was… just a bullet to the head of the President"], describing it as among the most alarming incidents the task force has monitored.

The witness said the incident was among the factors "nagdudulot sa atin ng pagkabahala sa ating pangulo at sa ating pambansang seguridad" ["giving us concern for the President and for our national security"].

Beyond the VP's alleged statement, the witness said investigators are tracking a broader and escalating pattern of threats against President Marcos — including from ordinary citizens online.

"Marami kaming monitoring sa social media ng mga banta... namin pong sinusundan sa seguridad po ng ating pangulo," the witness said ["We have extensive monitoring of social media threats... we are tracking these for the security of our President"].

The witness framed the pattern as evidence of a deliberate effort to "create chaos" and destabilise government — describing it as "sunod-sunod at magkakaugnay" ["successive and interconnected"] events. The task force's social media surveillance programme had not previously been disclosed on the record at this hearing.

The witness told the hearing that the Vice-Presidential Security Group (VPSG) — the VP's own protective detail — is itself a factor in assessing the capacity behind the alleged threat.

"Ang Vice-Presidential Security Group, VPSG natinatawag natin, alam natin sa ngayon ay napakarami pang miyembro na isang tawag lang ng ating [VP] ay handang tumugon sa kanyang mga instructions," the witness said ["The Vice-Presidential Security Group, what we call the VPSG — we know right now it has very many members who, with just one call from the VP, are ready to respond to her instructions"].

The VPSG joins a list of networks the witness cited — including military, police and alleged Davao Death Squad connections — in building the assessment that the alleged threat carries real executive capacity.

Testimony at the hearing has shifted to a new analytical pillar — motive and intention — with the NBI witness now arguing that Vice President Sara Duterte had a clear incentive behind the alleged threat.

"Naka, ang Pangulo ng Pilipinas ay mawawala, mamamatay, ang susunod na uupo — may succession — ay ang VP," the witness said ["If the President of the Philippines disappears, dies, the next to sit — by succession — is the VP."].

The witness also flagged the Vice-Presidential Security Group (VPSG) — described as having a large number of members who could be mobilised on the VP's instructions — as a further element of the capacity assessment. These claims are the witness's own analysis and have not been independently verified.

The NBI witness has broadened his analysis of Vice President Sara Duterte's alleged capacity to carry out a death threat against the President, citing her family's reported connection to the Davao Death Squad as a direct factor.

"Pagibing kasama sa pagtatatag ng Dabaw Death Squad. Alam naman natin kung anong kakayahan ang napit Death Squad, pumatay ng mga tao through EJK," the witness said ["Being part of the founding of the Davao Death Squad. We know what capability the Death Squad has — killing people through extrajudicial killings."].

The witness also cited the Duterte family's reported possession of firearms and financial resources sufficient to fund an assassination plan as additional factors in his capacity assessment. Counsel for the respondent has not yet responded to these specific claims on the broadcast.

The NBI witness testified on the seriousness of the alleged threat, saying in Tagalog: "Alam naman po natin ang B.P. may malawak na net" ["We all know the VP has an extensive network"], directly linking that network to the agency's assessment of the threat's credibility.

He added that the alleged threat — which earlier testimony described as a statement that the Vice President would have the President, the House Speaker, and the Senate President killed — was classified by investigators as serious, noting that in other jurisdictions, someone who made such a threat could still be in detention or removed from office.

Testimony at the Senate impeachment hearing has shifted from the Lascañas document to direct examination of the NBI witness on Vice President Sara Duterte's alleged capacity to carry out the threats she is accused of making against the President.

Asked what factors he considered in assessing that capacity, the witness pointed to the VP's extensive networks — including, he said, "mga men in uniforms sa Pilipinong Militar po natin sa Kapulisan" ["men in uniforms in our Philippine military and police"] — which he said were factored into his evaluation.

The witness also cited the fact that Sara Duterte's father, former president Rodrigo Duterte, had held the country's highest office for years and that the family retains significant regional influence, particularly in Davao — all elements the NBI weighed in concluding she had the means to act on the alleged threat.

Defence counsel pushed back one final time after the chair's ruling, arguing that simply allowing the passages to be read aloud risked giving them undue weight in the minds of the senator-judges and the public.

The presiding officer rejected that framing directly: "We did not give credence to it counsel. We merely allowed the witness to testify as to the evidence he used and or considered in his investigation — which actually has not yet borne fruit."

The exchange draws a clear line the chair wants on the record: the Lascañas document has been identified, not validated. The investigation it describes, the chair noted, remains unresolved — leaving open the question of whether the NBI probe will produce its own witnesses later in the proceedings.

The presiding officer formally cut short the reading of the Lascañas affidavit, telling prosecution counsel the Senate inquiry had heard enough to establish what it needed.

"I think you have sufficiently established counsel, the so-called pattern of violence that you sought to establish," the chair said from the bench, adding: "Kindly move on already to the other grounds for investigation."

The ruling marks the end of the extended Lascañas document readings that had dominated proceedings — and came after the chair had already warned the chamber three times that the passages were hearsay. The presiding officer stipulated that the testimony stands only as proof that a document exists and was used in an NBI open-source investigation, not as proof of the truth of its contents.

Before the presiding officer intervened, the final passage read aloud described the alleged Caltex station encounter as — in the document's own words — "a three to five minute kill order through abduction operation from a lady mayor of our city, the daughter of mayor-president Rodrigo Duterte."

The passage named the alleged targets as "shabu users and pushers and other suspected criminal enemies in Davao City" and tied the alleged order directly to what it called the nationwide Tokhang campaign of the Philippine National Police, as well as to "four-star general and newly elected senator Ronald 'Bato' Dela Rosa."

The document is attributed to Lascañas and has been marked as an exhibit; the presiding officer has repeatedly noted — and reiterated again today — that the passages are hearsay and cannot be taken as proof of the truth of the statements.

The presiding officer has intervened to end further readings from the disputed Lascañas affidavit, ruling that the prosecution has already done enough to establish what it set out to prove.

"Chair is inclined at this point to already agree with council for respondent," the chair said from the bench, adding that the so-called "pattern of violence" the NBI relied on in its investigation had been "sufficiently established" through the passages already read into the record.

The defence had pressed for a fourth clarification, warning that continued readings were "creating an impression" — not just with the senator-judges but with the watching public — that could mislead people "into believing the truth or falsity of these statements." The chair appeared to accept that argument, signalling an end to Director Matibag's identification of the document.

The Lascañas affidavit passage read aloud in court includes a detailed account of the alleged meeting location: a Caltex Gasoline Station parking area in front of SM Mall Ecoland, Matina, Davao City.

According to the document, a contact identified as Sonny Buenaventura met the witness there by prior arrangement. Before the witness could board the vehicle, the document says, Mayor Inday Sara Duterte arrived in a *"dark-blue SUV"* and remained inside it throughout the encounter while Buenaventura stood at the driver's-side window.

The document states the witness personally heard the alleged order while standing nearby. As with all Lascañas passages read today, the presiding officer has cautioned that the content is treated as hearsay — evidence of the NBI's investigative basis, not of the underlying facts.

A newly read section of the Lascañas affidavit — sub-marked as a prosecution exhibit — contains what the document describes as a direct order from Mayor Inday Sara Duterte to witnesses at a Caltex petrol station in Matina, Davao City.

The passage quotes her, in Visayan, as saying: *"Bulgar naman kayo man, usilun, shoot... Kidnapad na lang ninyo... para missing lang sila para dili samok ang lija"* ["You are too brazen — shooting your target is too obvious. Just kidnap them so they will just go missing, so that media won't bother us."].

The document describes it as "a three-to-five minute kill order through abduction." Defence counsel has registered a continuing objection, arguing the witness is not the author of the affidavit and cannot testify to its truth or falsity. The presiding officer has reminded senator-judges — for at least the third time today — that the passages remain hearsay and are admitted only to show what the NBI used as investigative leads, not as proof of the statements themselves.

The impeachment court has directed that the latest passage — describing the claimed Caltex station meeting and Buenaventura's role as intermediary — be bracketed and sub-marked as Exhibit B4-35A, adding to the string of sub-exhibits drawn from the disputed Lascañas document.

The defence renewed its continuing objection, arguing that the witness is not the author of the affidavit and is incompetent to testify as to its truth or falsity, and that reading its contents aloud prejudices the respondent when the actual author is not present to be cross-examined. The presiding officer noted the objection and directed the witness to proceed.

A newly sub-marked section of the Lascañas affidavit, now being read aloud before the impeachment court, alleges that Sara Duterte personally appeared at a Caltex gasoline station parking area in front of SM Mall, Ecoland, Matina, Davao City during a meeting arranged by a retired police officer identified as Sonny Buenaventura.

According to the passage read by the witness, Buenaventura instructed him to go to the location because Mayor Inday Sara Duterte would meet him there. The affidavit states the witness arrived on board a Strada pickup vehicle and that Buenaventura boarded it — before Sara Duterte arrived in her own SUV.

The context given in the document is that the meeting concerned what is described as an abduction operation order issued by Colonel Ronald 'Bato' Dela Rosa in connection with Tokhang operations. The presiding officer has again cautioned senator-judges that all such statements from the Lascañas affidavit are hearsay, and the defence's continuing objection is on the record.

The presiding officer issued what he called a third reminder to fellow Senator-Judges that statements in the Lascañas document attributed to then-General, now Senator Ronald 'Bato' Dela Rosa are "clearly hearsay" — even on the part of Lascañas himself.

"The mention of statements allegedly made by then-General De La Rosa, now Senator De La Rosa, are clearly hearsay even on the part of Lascañas himself," the presiding officer said from the bench.

He stressed the court is admitting the document only to establish what the NBI used as the basis for its investigation — not as proof of the truth of what the passages allege. The defence's continuing objection was noted, and the witness was nonetheless directed to proceed.

The freshly read passage — containing the allegation about "Mayor Inday" and the quarry burials — was immediately sub-marked by the court as Exhibit B4-35A, extending the exhibit series opened when the earlier Dela Rosa paragraph was marked B4-35.

Counsel for the respondent moved quickly to register a continuing objection, arguing that while the court had permitted the witness to *identify* the document, allowing him to *read portions aloud* went a step further. The objection was noted for the record.

In one of the most striking moments of the hearing so far, the witness read into the record a passage from the disputed Lascañas document alleging that Sara Duterte-Carpio — referred to as "Mayor Inday" — ordered operatives to kidnap targets and bury them in a quarry rather than shoot them openly, because media scrutiny had intensified.

The passage, as read by the witness and visible on the shared document on screen, states: *"I talk to Mayor Inday as part of our Tokhang operation, she ordered us to lay low [on] killings through gun shooting because the media is asking too much. Just kidnap targets, then bury them in the quarry so they would go missing. She's okay with that way."*

The claims are contained in the same Lascañas document already ruled inadmissible as proof of truth — the court has allowed it only to show an alleged "pattern of violence." They remain unverified allegations and Sara Duterte-Carpio has not responded to them on the broadcast.

The impeachment court has heard the disputed Lascañas affidavit paragraph for the first time, read directly into the record by the witness.

Paragraph 270 states that 2012–2013 were "the birth of Tokhang operations and the evil side of enforcement in Davao City" — and names Colonel Ronald 'Bato' Dela Rosa as the installed Davao City Police Office director responsible. The passage also names Inday Sara Duterte-Carpio and Rodrigo Roa Duterte in the same context, according to the document displayed on screen.

The court directed the passage to be sub-marked as Exhibit B4-35. The document remains unsigned and unnotarized — admitted by both sides — and was introduced solely to show the pattern of violence that the prosecution says underpins the charges, not as proof of the allegations' truth.

In a terse exchange, prosecutors argued that notarization of documents is not required under ICC rules — apparently seeking to pre-empt the defence's attack on the unsigned Lascañas affidavit.

The presiding officer cut the argument short. "Noted, but we are not the ICC," came the immediate reply from the bench, drawing a clear line between international tribunal standards and the impeachment court's own evidentiary rules.

Asked by the court to explain why he relied on a document that is neither subscribed to nor under oath, the witness offered a defence rooted in investigative practice, saying the special task force treats such material as open-source intelligence.

"Alam nyo po, your honor. Sa law enforcement po, mayroon po tayong mga tinatawag na open source intel. At ito po ang pinadala sa atin at ating pong susundan," he said ["You know, your honor. In law enforcement, we have what are called open source intelligence. This was sent to us and we followed it up."].

He added that the document gave the task force "direction at mga leads" ["direction and leads"] and that their probe remained a "continuing, active investigation" — framing the Lascañas statement not as sworn evidence but as an investigative pointer. The court has already ruled the affidavit may only be used to show a pattern of violence, not as proof of its contents.

In a significant concession during the hearing, the prosecution acknowledged that neither the pre-marked copy nor the copy now being used by witness Afi David carries a notarization — confirming the defence's central objection on this point.

The presiding officer asked directly whether the pre-marked exhibit was notarized. Prosecution counsel replied: "Yes, sir" — admitting that even that copy was not notarized, "whether we use that copy or this one."

The defence had argued strenuously that without proper signature and notarization, the document is "a mere scrap of paper" that cannot support the witness's testimony.