The Wire

A senator raised a fresh procedural dispute during the hearing, telling the Senate President he had submitted a written continuing objection to a ruling on a subpoena dated 20 July 2026.

The senator moved that the objection be included in the official journal, but the Senate President acknowledged a "technical difficulty" that may prevent it from appearing there, saying the matter would be resolved later. The senator was told it would at minimum appear in the transcript and record.

The exchange signals an emerging dispute over the formal documentation of the subpoena proceedings — a detail that could become significant if the investigation moves toward court action.

Before the dramatic probability exchange, the Senate President pressed Director Matibag on the timeline, noting the probe has now run for one year and eight months without naming a specific individual.

A separate senator then asked directly: is the investigation close or far from naming the alleged contractor? Matibag repeated his earlier answer — "malapit na rin" ["we are getting close"] — and reaffirmed his 3-to-6-month target window.

The Senate President also noted that a new task force had been formed as recently as November 2024, raising the question of whether the clock had effectively been reset.

In the sharpest exchange of the hearing so far, a senator pressed NBI Director Matibag to put a number on it: what is the probability that the Vice President actually spoke to someone who agreed to carry out the alleged assassination plot?

Matibag did not hesitate. "100%," he said — pointing to the VP's own public statement as the basis for his certainty.

"100% sa pagkatselamismo ang nagsabi ng kanyang plano na siya may kinauusap ng papatay at pumayag ang papatay sa kanilang pag-uusap," he said ["100% — she herself stated her plan, that she had spoken to someone to carry out the killing, and that person agreed in their conversation"].

The answer drew on the NBI's position, stated earlier in the hearing, that the VP's own words constitute the clearest evidence of the alleged plot.

The NBI chief told the impeachment court that the probe has moved beyond intelligence-gathering in at least some cases — disclosing that complaints have already been filed against individuals who, he said, were allegedly influenced by Vice President Sara Duterte's public statements into pursuing what he called "kinetic" action.

"May ilang po kaming sinampahan na rin ang mga kaso," he said ["There are already some cases that we have filed"], citing social media activity and direct conversations with individuals as part of the evidence base.

He added that in one exchange, a person he spoke with made clear they were "always targeting the head" — an apparent reference to the President — describing it as corroborating the intelligence picture.

Pressed by Senate President Gatchalian for a specific deadline, the NBI chief gave the clearest timeline yet on the investigation into the alleged plot against President Marcos.

"As we go on to the progress, probably within the 3-6 months ay magkakaroon butay na," he said — promising that within that window, investigators expect to formally identify the person described as the 'contractor' behind the alleged plan ["As we go on to the progress, probably within the 3-6 months we will have a resolution on this"].

He added that several names have already been identified among persons of interest and that surveillance is ongoing "as we speak."

Pressed repeatedly by the Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian on when the investigation will conclude — noting that a new task force was only stood up in November 2024 — the NBI chief offered the hearing its clearest timeline signal yet.

"Sa balagay ko po, malapit na rin natin itong hanyap," he said ["In my view, we are getting close to finding what we are looking for"], adding that persons of interest are under active surveillance and that interviews of people close to key figures are ongoing "as we speak."

The Senate President had asked bluntly: "Malapit na ba o malayo pa?" ["Are we close or still far away?"] — to which the NBI chief's answer amounted to: close.

Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian used his two-minute slot to deliver the sharpest prosecution-side framing of the hearing so far, telling the NBI chief that the Vice President's own words have already crossed a threshold.

"Para sa akin po, this is actually a public confession na," he said ["For me, this is actually already a public confession"], arguing that what the VP said — that she had spoken with someone who agreed to carry out killings — placed not only the President's security but "ang ating pabansang siguridad" ["our national security"] in jeopardy.

Gatchalian pressed the NBI chief directly: after one year and eight months, no specific individual has been named. The chief did not dispute the timeline.

Responding to Senate President Gatchalian's line of questioning, the NBI chief acknowledged that the intelligence pointing to an alleged plot to kill the President had been reported to the agency through Task Force 90 — and that a planning stage had been admitted to.

But the chief drew a careful line: identifying and charging specific individuals requires evidence that can prove, in court, who was involved in the planning and who gave the orders — evidence the NBI says it is still developing.

The exchange underscores a central tension running through the hearing: the NBI has active intelligence suggesting a continuing threat to the President's life, but has so far been unable to move against named suspects in the alleged conspiracy.

Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian used his two-minute slot to deliver the sharpest characterisation of the day, telling the NBI chief that the Vice President's recorded statements — in which she allegedly said she had spoken to someone who agreed to kill the President and others — constituted a self-incriminating admission.

"Para sa akin po, this is actually a public confession na," he said ["For me, this is actually already a public confession"], arguing that the statement placed at risk not only the President's security but national security itself.

Gatchalian pressed the NBI chief on whether those named as participants in the alleged planning had been identified — acknowledging earlier testimony that a concrete plan, not merely a threat, had been described on the record.

Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian took the floor next, opening his two-minute slot with a pointed observation to the NBI chief: that after one year and eight months, the bureau had still not surfaced the key evidence his questioning was about to probe.

The remark signals a new line of scrutiny from the senator-judges — not just the legal basis of the investigation, but its pace and results after more than a year of work.

The NBI chief drew a sharp distinction at the impeachment hearing on Thursday, confirming that the bureau does have actionable intelligence of a continuing threat to President Marcos's life — but said no such actionable intelligence exists regarding a threat to Vice President Sara Duterte's life.

"Malinaw po yan," the NBI chief said ["That is clear"], explaining that the only specific threat to the VP traced by investigators came from the statements of Princess Maui — the vlogger who, the bureau has already confirmed, was invited to the NBI but never appeared.

The NBI chief added that the bureau's mandate covers protecting the security of the President, Vice President, Senate President, Speaker of the House and Chief Justice, and that monitoring of threats continues regardless.

Asked whether the NBI has actionable intelligence that the danger to the President's life is ongoing, the NBI chief answered affirmatively, saying the threat has grown broader.

"Lalupang lumawak ang banta sa Presidente," the chief said ["The threat against the President has further expanded"] — adding that the agency is using the US Secret Service's National Threat Assessment Center methodology, under which all observed behaviour and statements feed into a continuing threat-level calculation.

The chief noted that even ordinary citizens are now being monitored for threat-related statements, saying the risk picture extends well beyond any single actor.

The NBI chief told the Senate that the label "Oplan Romanov" originated in a statement made by Mayor Sara Duterte on January 18, 2024, in which she addressed President Bongbong Marcos directly.

The chief quoted her as saying: *"Remember the Romanovs and the Mussolinis and what happened to the Marcos family in 1986"* — words the NBI read as a threat against the President and the Marcos family, which it says formed the basis of the threat assessment now known internally as Oplan Romanov.

The chief said the agency's then-director subsequently used the "Oplan Romanov" label publicly when referring to the alleged threat against VP Sara Duterte's life — a framing the NBI now says it is actively investigating.

A senator-judge pressed the NBI chief on whether alleged threats run in both directions — not only the VP's alleged plot against President Marcos, but also an alleged threat against Vice President Sara Duterte and her family.

The NBI chief confirmed that what he called 'Oplan Romanov' — an alleged operation directed at the VP — is covered by the NBI's ongoing investigation. He traced part of the thread to a statement attributed to a figure referred to as Mayor Bastido Duterte, made on or around January 18, 2024, in which the mayor allegedly said: *"Let me tell you this, Mr. Bongbong Marcos..."* — though the chief said he could not recall the exact words.

The senator-judge drew the contrast explicitly: on one side, the VP's alleged threat against the President; on the other, an alleged threat against the VP and the Duterte family. "Pareho po ba yang ina-investigahan ng NBI?" she asked ["Are both of these being investigated by the NBI?"]. The chief confirmed they are.

The NBI chief gave the first biographical detail on the figure known as 'Princess Maui', whose name has been repeatedly raised at the impeachment hearing.

"Sa pagkakaalam ko ay blogger. Ano po ang background niya? Kaya naging vlogger?" he said, before adding that the individual is widely known as a DDS (Duterte Die-Hard Supporter). ["To my knowledge, she is a blogger. What is her background? How did she become a vlogger?"].

The NBI chief said Princess Maui was invited to appear before the NBI but did not show up — and that the case is now part of the continuing investigation, alongside the name 'Nusubay Bayan' also mentioned in that context.

The NBI chief told the impeachment court that a warrantless arrest of Vice President Sara Duterte was deliberately avoided because it could have led to the dismissal of the case — and potentially blocked the filing of the appropriate charges.

"Kung kami ay gagawa ng warrantless arrest, ay maripong madismis ang kaso," he said ["If we carried out a warrantless arrest, the case could have been dismissed"], adding that the bureau's goal was to ensure charges would properly prosper in court.

The explanation adds a legal-strategy dimension to the NBI's earlier position that the VP's office was a factor in the decision not to arrest her immediately.

A senator-judge asked the NBI chief to characterise a statement attributed in testimony to a member of the Duterte family — quoted on the record as: "Isang ulo lang naman ang kailangan namin at ang ulo ni BBM or Bong Bong Marcos" ["We only need one head, and that is the head of BBM or Bong Bong Marcos"].

The NBI chief said the agency treated the remark as a direct threat to the sitting president: "Itirinato po namin ito na isang threat sa isang banta sa ating pangulo na transcends — isang threat to our national security" ["We treated this as a threat to our President — a threat to our national security"].

Asked whether the statement amounted to placing a bounty on the President's head — "dead or alive or something to that effect" — the chief said it could be interpreted that way, adding that the agency had folded it into a broader assessment of security threats against the President.

Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo pressed the NBI chief on a pointed double standard during Wednesday's impeachment court session: why was a man who threatened former President Rodrigo Duterte arrested on the spot without a warrant, while Vice President Sara Duterte — who allegedly threatened President Marcos — was not?

The NBI chief confirmed the earlier case, saying the individual — identified in testimony as Ronel Mas — was charged with grave threats after demanding ₱50 million and was immediately taken into custody, with the NBI's Region 1 office leading the pursuit. The chief described the threat as a serious risk not only to the former president but to national security.

Asked to explain the difference in treatment, the NBI chief said: "Siburo po ay ito ang nag-inconsideration kung bakit na hindi siya in-arresto agad" ["I believe this was a consideration for why she was not immediately arrested"] — pointing to VP Sara's position as Vice President as a distinguishing factor. The chief added that in some foreign jurisdictions, a sitting vice president who made such a threat could be immediately detained and removed from office, but said he could not speak for the NBI's final position on the matter.

More now on the NBI director's testimony on the constitutional versus criminal distinction raised by a senator-judge.

Asked to explain why an alleged plot to arrange a killing — even if it falls outside the Revised Penal Code — could still constitute an impeachable offense, the NBI chief pointed directly to the Vice President's oath of office.

"Yung pag-usap ng papatay, that is to execute the President, kaya dun papasok yung magayang betrayal of public trust," he said ["Talking about killing — that is to execute the President — that is where betrayal of public trust comes in"], adding that the oath requires the official to "protect and defend the Constitution, execute the laws, do justice to everyone." Planning a killing, he argued, is the very opposite of executing the laws — and that is the bridge from alleged conduct to an impeachable offense.

Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo put a pointed question to the NBI chief during the impeachment trial: a man identified as Ronel Mas — described as a "guro" who allegedly threatened former president Rodrigo Duterte and demanded ₱50 million — was arrested on the spot without a warrant. So why was Vice President Sara Duterte, who allegedly threatened sitting president Bongbong Marcos, treated differently?

The NBI chief said Mas had been pursued by the bureau's Region 1 office, charged with grave threats, and was considered a major threat not only to the former president but to national security. His warrantless arrest was confirmed on the record: "Tamá po," the witness replied ["That is correct"].

On the disparity in treatment, the NBI chief suggested that Mas being a private individual was among the factors taken into consideration — implicitly contrasting that with Duterte's status as Vice President — though no fuller explanation was given before the senator-judge's time expired.

A senator-judge introduced a new figure into the impeachment record late in the session, asking the NBI director whether he was familiar with the case of a person identified in the transcript as Ronel Mas.

The senator-judge noted the individual was not connected to the NBI at the time of the alleged events, and asked the witness to describe the case briefly. The transcript indicates the person allegedly named who would kill former President Rodrigo Duterte — but the testimony was cut off mid-answer.

*This is a developing line of questioning. GPS will update as the testimony continues.*

The NBI's basis for believing Vice President Sara Duterte engaged someone to carry out a killing was, in part, the VP's own public statement, the bureau's chief told the impeachment court.

"Yung naging basihan nga po dito ang akib contestimonya kanina, na yung five-point field po na pinagbabasihan ng National Threat Assessment Center na ginagamit po ng Secret Service po ng Amerika," he said ["The basis for this was the earlier testimony, and the five-point field assessment used by the National Threat Assessment Center — which is used by the US Secret Service."] He also cited the VP's own pronouncement — "may ko okay na usap siya at pumaayag" ["that she had already spoken to someone and that person agreed"] — as a key evidentiary anchor.

The NBI chief added that the bureau's investigation into finding the alleged contractor is ongoing, and he asked the court to be informed of findings once it concludes.

A senator-judge pressed the NBI director on a precise but consequential point: there is a legal and investigative difference between saying a suspect has not yet been identified and saying no such person exists.

The intervention — made on the record in the Senate chamber — underscored that the bureau's ongoing work to verify and validate information it holds does not amount to a conclusion that the alleged individual is fictitious. The senator asked the director to explain the importance of that distinction for the court's record.

The exchange matters for independent podcasters and journalists following the case: it signals that senator-judges are actively policing how the NBI's findings are characterised, and that inconclusiveness in a criminal probe is not being treated as exculpatory in an impeachment proceeding.

The NBI director drew a sharp legal line before the impeachment court, distinguishing between what his bureau can prosecute criminally and what the Senate can judge constitutionally.

On grave threats and inciting to sedition, he said those were clearly within the Revised Penal Code. But on the alleged plot to kill — the act of seeking out a person to carry out an assassination — he said: "Hindi po ito napapalob sa Revised Penal Code dahil yung pang-pagplano ng pagpatay hindi naman pira paro saan" ["This is not covered by the Revised Penal Code because the planning of a killing is not straightforwardly covered"].

However, he argued that the oath of office changes the calculus entirely. Quoting the constitutional pledge — "protect and defend the constitution, execute the laws, do justice to everyone" — he said that discussing the killing of the President is a direct violation of the duty to "execute the laws," and that is where, in his view, betrayal of public trust enters: "Yung pagusap ng papatay, that is to execute the President, kaya dun papasok yung magbibigay ng betrayal of public trust" ["Talking about having the President killed — that is where betrayal of public trust comes in"].

NBI Director Matibag told the impeachment court that the bureau's investigation found the allegations of grave threat and inciting to sedition against VP Sara Duterte are "malinaw na napapalob sa Revised Penal Code" ["clearly covered by the Revised Penal Code"].

The statement came in direct response to a senator-judge's question on whether the alleged 'order to kill' could give rise to criminal liability under existing penal laws — a distinction the court is now explicitly separating from the constitutional question of impeachable offenses.

A senator-judge pressed NBI Director Matibag on a fundamental legal distinction at the heart of the VP Sara Duterte impeachment trial: criminal liability and constitutional accountability are not the same thing.

"Hindi po lahat ng maaring maging batayang ang impeachment kailangan tumutumbas sa isang crimen," the senator-judge said ["Not everything that can be a basis for impeachment needs to correspond to a crime"] — because impeachment, the senator-judge argued, is not merely about breaking the law but about "paglabag sa tiwalang ipinagkaloob ng taong bayan" ["violation of the trust granted by the people"].

The intervention comes as the defense has been pressing Matibag on whether the alleged 'order to kill' fits any specific provision of the Revised Penal Code — a line of questioning the senator-judge's framing appears designed to reframe.

The NBI chief faced a new line of questioning as cross-examination resumed, with the defense asking whether an allegation that someone *ordered or contracted another person to carry out a killing* could fall under existing provisions of the Revised Penal Code or other special penal laws.

The question goes to the heart of the NBI's legal theory — whether the conduct alleged against VP Sara Duterte is actually criminalised under Philippine law, and if so, under which statute.

The NBI chief's response to the question was not yet audible in the latest feed.

Pressed by the defense on an editorial he wrote calling Vice President Sara Duterte an "ill-bred Bratinella," the NBI director pushed back on the framing — but not the substance.

"Siguro sa title na Bratinella, that is not my original. Infa kaya ko po na sulat yan, e yan ang bisbong naririnig ng kami magkakasaman nila dating pangap," he said ["Perhaps on the title 'Bratinella,' that is not my original. What prompted me to write that is what we were hearing together — that the Duterte family themselves called her 'Inday' the Bratinella."].

He acknowledged the editorial was his opinion as a writer, but maintained that as NBI Director his investigation would be "based on law, on evidence, and on due process" — not on poll numbers or public opinion.

The prosecution moved swiftly to oppose the defense's motion for continuance, telling the impeachment court the defense had already begun — and put extensive questions to — the NBI chief during cross-examination.

"We do not understand your honor why they will move for continuance after already" starting the cross-examination, a prosecutor argued, calling the motion premature.

The defense had cited two grounds for the delay: new topics raised during direct examination that it says were not part of the articles of impeachment, and a 100-page unsigned and unnotarized document introduced by the prosecution during direct examination that it says it needs time to review.