The Wire

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. declared on Tuesday that the Philippines remains committed to peace but will never compromise its sovereignty or abandon its national dignity amid continuing tensions with China in the West Philippine Sea, the Philippine Daily Inquirer reports.

Making the remarks at an Armed Forces of the Philippines change of command ceremony in Quezon City, Marcos said: "We seek cooperation, but we will never compromise our sovereignty. We extend friendship to all, but we will never abandon our national dignity."

Marcos described this approach as the "Filipino way," saying the country would continue pursuing peaceful and respectful engagement with other nations while standing firm on its sovereignty. He commended outgoing AFP chief General Romeo Brawner Jr. for sustaining a "steadfast presence in the West Philippine Sea through maritime and air patrols, asserting our sovereignty and sovereign rights."

The Armed Forces of the Philippines released video showing China Coast Guard members aboard a rigid-hulled inflatable boat holding wooden batons while confronting Philippine Navy personnel at Ayungin Shoal, GMA News reports. One Philippine Navy sailor was struck on the head and another injured on the hand during the incident, which the AFP said occurred after CCG personnel ignored repeated orders to leave the disputed waters.

"Instead of complying, China Coast Guard personnel responded with violence, striking Philippine Navy personnel with wooden batons and damaging the Philippine Navy rubber boats," the AFP said. "Despite the aggression, our troops exercised maximum restraint, professionalism, and discipline while carrying out their mission."

The AFP said Philippine Navy personnel deployed two rubber boats in a "measured, non-confrontational effort" to direct the CCG vessel away and did not initiate any provocation. Rear Admiral Jay Tarriela, the Philippine Coast Guard's spokesperson for the West Philippine Sea, called the CCG's entry into the Philippines' exclusive economic zone "a provocation on their part."

The Department of Education and the Australian government launched the Education Quality for Inclusive Prosperity (EQUIP) program on Tuesday, a five-year initiative funded with AUD40 million (about P1.6 billion) running from 2025 to 2030. Education Secretary Sonny Angara and Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong led the launch at Mariano Marcos Memorial High School in Manila, with DepEd saying the program could receive an additional AUD20 million over three years, bringing Australia's total potential investment to AUD60 million through 2033.

The program will strengthen work immersion through partnerships between Philippine schools and Australian institutions including Melbourne Polytechnic and The Gordon Institute. Industry partners will help develop training programs aligned with workforce needs in construction, healthcare, information technology, tourism, transport and logistics, and manufacturing.

EQUIP will also introduce literacy and numeracy support for struggling learners, provide teacher capability-building programs, and develop data systems to improve education planning, GMA News reports.

Looking beyond next week's shortened schedule, the presiding officer announced that from August onward the impeachment trial will run Monday to Wednesday, 10 AM to 3 PM, with a short midday break.

Counsel for both parties were asked to take note of the new standing schedule.

The presiding officer asked Director Matibag directly, on the record, whether he would return tomorrow without the court issuing a formal subpoena. Matibag answered: "Yes, sir, gladly."

His cross-examination by counsel for the respondent will continue tomorrow, Wednesday, July 23, at 2 PM — later than the usual morning start time, the court noted.

The presiding officer formally recalled the subpoenas issued to two Commission on Audit witnesses — Ms. Violeta Constantino and Ms. Nenita Camposano — effective immediately, saying they are no longer required to appear before the impeachment court at this time.

Addressing the two witnesses directly in Filipino, the presiding officer said: "Hindi na po kailangan magpunta dito sa hukuman" ["You no longer need to come here to the court"] — adding that new subpoenas may be re-issued at a later date when their testimony is needed.

Senator Judge Zubiri confirmed the recall was agreed with both parties' counsel, with confidential-fund testimony now expected to begin no earlier than Tuesday — pushed further to July 29, given next week's SONA-related suspension.

The presiding officer announced that the Sara Duterte impeachment trial will be suspended for two days next week.

There will be no trial on Monday, July 27 — the day of the State of the Nation Address — and no trial on Tuesday, July 28, to give the minority the opportunity to prepare and deliver their traditional contra-SONA response.

The court will resume on Wednesday, July 29, but at revised hours: 10 AM to 3 PM, with a short break for lunch. The regular Senate session will follow at 4 PM. The presiding officer said the schedule would be formally clarified on Wednesday.

The impeachment court has signalled that the article covering confidential funds will not be reached until Tuesday — a day later than some had expected — as NBI Director Matibag's cross-examination is set to continue tomorrow.

The presiding officer confirmed that after the cross-examination (and any re-direct and re-cross), senator judges may make their interventions. The prosecution's question about whether confidential-fund witnesses could begin tomorrow was deferred, with the chair saying it would be addressed before adjournment.

A senator judge briefly sought clarification on the Monday/Tuesday distinction; the presiding officer confirmed Tuesday as the target date for picking up that article.

The presiding officer announced the impeachment court is withdrawing — for now — the subpoenas issued to two witnesses from the Commission on Audit: Ms. Violeta Constantino and Ms. Nenita Camposano.

The recall is without prejudice to re-issuing the subpoenas at a later date. In a direct address to the two women, the presiding officer said the court would let them know when they are actually needed to appear.

A senator judge asked whether the withdrawal was because the court could not take up their testimony tomorrow. The presiding officer confirmed that was correct, saying the decision followed a discussion with counsel for both parties.

The presiding officer confirmed the court is acting on Subpoena ad Testificandum requests addressed to officials of the Commission on Audit (COA), with a ruling expected before adjournment.

Separately, the prosecution asked the court to clarify whether — after NBI Director Matibag's cross-examination concludes tomorrow — the trial would immediately move to the first witness on the confidential fund portion of the case. The presiding officer said the court would address the question before closing.

The sequence matters: how quickly the court pivots to the confidential fund evidence will signal the pace of the remaining prosecution case.

The presiding officer has directed the prosecution to furnish a copy of Administrative Order Number 11 — signed by NBI Director Matibag and dated April 16, 2026 — to all parties before today's session formally closes.

The order was requested by the defense as a reference document. The directive sets an immediate deadline: delivery must be made after proceedings wrap, not tomorrow.

The ruling is one of several administrative matters being disposed of as the impeachment court winds down Tuesday's session.

Before yielding the floor, Senator-Judge Pia Cayetano raised a second line of attack on the NBI witness — beyond the document-authentication failure — citing Rule 132 of the Rules of Evidence on witness credibility.

She read from the rule that a witness may be impeached "by evidence that he or she has made at other times statements inconsistent with his or her present testimony," adding that "there are lots of cases supporting this."

The argument signals that the defense side of the chamber intends to press the NBI director on prior inconsistencies when cross-examination resumes tomorrow.

The Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero has ruled that tonight's session will not wait for the senator to locate her notes. NBI Director Matibag will return tomorrow for continued cross-examination by counsel for the respondent, and the senator will be given the first opportunity among senator-judges to intervene — immediately after that cross-examination and any re-direct or re-cross concludes.

"The Presiding Officer will give the lady first crack at interventions by a senator-judge tomorrow after the cross-examination," the Presiding Officer announced from the bench at 6:46 PM.

The ruling effectively carries the senator's unfinished legal argument — on witness competence and document authentication — into Wednesday's proceedings.

More now on the document authentication sequence that has dominated this session. Senator-Judge Pia Cayetano walked the impeachment court through Rule 132, Section 19 of the Rules of Evidence, laying out three ways a private document can be authenticated: the person who wrote it witnessed doing so; genuine signature or handwriting of the maker; or other evidence of due execution.

On each test, the prosecution answered "No" — the NBI witness did not see the document written, the defence had already flagged the absence of an original signature, and no other evidence of due execution was offered.

"They're trying to prove something by showing a document that any law student — even ang kababayan natin nakikinig ngayon — na maraming alarm sa procedure — will tell you na hindi acceptable," the senator said ["even our countrymen listening right now — who have many alarms about the procedure — will tell you it is not acceptable"].

A senator challenged the prosecution's documentary evidence on the floor of the impeachment court, citing Rule 132, Section 19 of the Rules of Evidence, which requires documents to be either authenticated by the person who wrote them or properly classified as public documents.

Asked directly whether the NBI witness saw the document in question being written, the prosecution answered: "No, Your Honor."

The exchange raised questions about the admissibility of key NBI documents submitted during the trial, with the senator pressing that under the rules, a witness must either have seen the document executed or signed — or it cannot be authenticated through their testimony alone.

As the hearing moved into a prosecution segment, a representative clarified the purpose of the NBI chief's appearance before the impeachment court: the testimony was presented solely to lay out what occurred during the special task force's investigation, not to argue its weight as evidence.

"What we are intending to do here is to present only what happened during the investigation of the NBI," the representative said, adding that questions of probative value were "not part actually of the decision of the prosecution."

A senator immediately pushed back, noting that the rules of evidence require a witness either to give direct testimony or to serve another defined purpose — signalling that the witness's precise legal role may face further challenge.

The NBI chief pushed back on the argument that VP Sara Duterte's high trust ratings should factor into the bureau's calculus, drawing a sharp legal distinction between popularity and the constitutional standard.

"Alam naman natin, there are surveys that can be manipulated po," he said ["We all know that there are surveys that can be manipulated"], cautioning that survey numbers alone cannot be treated as a measure of public accountability.

He went on to argue that "betrayal of public trust" — a constitutional ground for impeachment — requires no criminal conviction and does not depend on approval ratings: "Negative yung trust rating mo, 100% yung trust rating mo. Basis batas, basis sa Konstitusyon" ["Whether your trust rating is negative or 100%, what matters is the law and the Constitution"].

A senator pressed the NBI chief on what he called a glaring double standard: an ordinary man — described as a "guru" — was arrested without a warrant almost immediately after making threats, yet Vice President Sara Duterte, who allegedly made similar statements, has not been arrested.

"Bakit yung isang guru na nagbanta... agad in-aresto, at bakit isang vice president na nagbanta kay Pangulong Bongbong Marcos hindi na-aresto ng NBI?" the senator demanded ["Why was a guru who made threats arrested immediately, but a vice president who threatened President Bongbong Marcos was not arrested by the NBI?"].

The NBI chief offered no direct answer, saying only that "maaaring may pagkakaiba po ng proseso" ["there may be a difference in process"] — a response the senator did not press further, having exhausted his time.

A senator raised Vice President Sara Duterte's trust ratings — described in the hearing as higher than the President's — and asked the NBI chief directly whether a strong public approval rating was legally relevant to a finding of betrayal of public trust.

The NBI chief was unequivocal: "Ang trust rating ibig sabihin wala ng betrayal of the public trust — wala po," he said ["A trust rating does not mean there is no betrayal of public trust — it does not"], adding that in his experience as a political observer, surveys are "only a snapshot."

The exchange underscores a recurring tension in the hearing: whether public popularity can be read as evidence of innocence in the ongoing investigation.

In a pointed challenge to the NBI chief, a senator drew a direct comparison between the bureau's treatment of two people who allegedly made threats: an ordinary individual — referred to in the hearing as a 'guru' — who was reportedly arrested immediately, and Vice President Sara Duterte, who was not.

"Bakit yung isang guru na nagbanta... agad in-aresto, at bakit isang vice president na nagbanta kay Pangulong Bongbong Marcos hindi na-aresto ng NBI?" the senator asked ["Why was an ordinary person who made threats... immediately arrested, but a vice president who made threats against President Bongbong Marcos was not arrested by the NBI?"].

The NBI chief could only say there "may be a difference in the process" and that the circumstances were being evaluated — a response the senator appeared to find unsatisfactory.

More now on the senator's sustained challenge to the NBI's legal mandate — a line of questioning that ended with a pointed logical trap.

Reading aloud from Republic Act 10867, the senator noted that Section 5 lists specific crimes the NBI may investigate, and that a separate proviso explicitly allows the President or Secretary of Justice to direct the bureau to investigate *any* crime. "Why do they have to say 'any crime' if you can investigate any crime after all?" the senator asked. "It seems that you're expanding your jurisdiction by yourself."

The NBI director defended the bureau's conduct, saying it has long operated as the country's primary law-enforcement investigating body — but did not directly rebut the statutory argument.

The NBI director conceded Wednesday that there were procedural failures in the warrantless arrest of an individual — referred to in the hearing as Ronel Mas (name as heard in transcript) — after a senator pressed him directly on whether the action was illegal.

"Mayroon po nga lapses po dun sa procedure," the director said ["There were indeed lapses in the procedure"], stopping short of explicitly calling the arrest unlawful.

The same senator then challenged the bureau to apply the same standard consistently, noting that Sebastien 'Basté' Duterte had allegedly made threats similar in character to those for which the NBI had previously moved against another individual — and asking why the NBI had not acted in that case as it had in the other.

Under pressure from the statutory reading, the NBI chief appeared to soften his earlier blanket claim that the bureau can investigate any crime.

"Yong lang po, merong mga kaso kung ito po ay bumagsak na sa jurisdiction — alimbawa ng PNP," he said ["There are cases that fall under the jurisdiction — for example, of the PNP"], acknowledging that the agency's mandate is not unlimited.

He maintained that the NBI remains "the primary investigating body," but the exchange left unresolved how the bureau justifies its current investigation's legal footing under the enumerated-powers framework.

A senator pressed the NBI chief by reading the enumerated powers of the bureau directly from Republic Act 10867 — the law reorganising and modernising the agency.

The list on the record includes: human trafficking at airports, extrajudicial killings by state security forces against media practitioners, killings of justices and judges, threats and security assaults against the President, Vice President, Senate President, Speaker of the House, and Chief Justice, transnational crime, mass-fatality identification, and commercial or white-collar crime.

"Hindi ba limited ang pwede nyo ang investigahan?" the senator asked — "Isn't what you can investigate limited?" — pointing out that only the President or the Secretary of Justice can direct the NBI to take on crimes outside that enumeration.

More now on the exchange over the NBI's investigative logic. A senator pressed the NBI chief on what he described as an inconsistency: if the bureau believes VP Sara spoke to someone who agreed to carry out killings, why does it not equally credit her claim that she herself feared being killed?

The NBI chief's response, as captured in the transcript: "Pumayag, yung po kanyang sinasabi na kung papatayin ako, that is supposed to be na statement niya, sa aming pananaw, just to cover your..." — ["(She spoke to someone who) agreed. Her statement that 'if I am going to be killed' — that, in our view, is just to cover..."] — before continuing that the bureau focuses on the threat that has already reached national security level, taking into account her own words about having spoken to someone who agreed to carry out killings.

The NBI chief appeared to be restating his earlier position: that the fear-for-her-life framing is, in the bureau's assessment, a cover for her own statements about the alleged plot.

A senator at the hearing pushed back on the NBI chief's earlier claim that the bureau can investigate any crime, citing the text of Republic Act 10867 — the law reorganising and modernising the NBI — which lists a specific enumeration of cases under Section 5.

Those enumerated crimes include human trafficking, extrajudicial killings by state security forces against media practitioners, killings of justices and judges, anti-graft cases, and — notably — "threats, security assaults against persons of the President, Vice President, Senate President, Speaker of the House, and Chief Justice."

The senator pointedly noted that senators and congressmen are not on the list, unlike judges — raising the question of whether the NBI's broad investigative claim holds up against its own statutory charter.

Responding to a question about the scope of the NBI's investigative mandate, the NBI chief clarified that the bureau may open cases on its own initiative — motu proprio — as well as pursuing complaints brought directly to its offices.

"Lahat ng mga pumapasok sa amin na mga krimen ay amin pwedeng investigahan... ganon din po yung mga krimen na mayroon nag-reklamo na araw-araw na maypumunta sa aming tanggapan para mag-reklamo, ito po ay aming inimbestigahan," he said. ["All crimes that come before us we can investigate... the same goes for crimes where there are complainants who come to our office every day to file complaints — these we investigate."]

The clarification appeared aimed at underlining that the current assassination-plot inquiry falls squarely within the NBI's lawful authority.

The NBI chief gave the clearest explanation yet of how the bureau handles the apparent contradiction at the heart of the inquiry: if investigators believe VP Sara Duterte arranged killings, why don't they equally believe her claim that she herself feared being killed?

The NBI chief said the bureau does not simply discard the fear claim — but views it as a defensive move. "Yung po kanyang sinasabi na kung papatayin ako, that is supposed to be na statement niya, sa amin po pananaw, just to cover your...kanyang pagsasabi na sa imikinong husap para patayin ang ating bangulo," he said. ["Her statement that 'if I am killed' — in our view, that is supposed to be a statement just to cover her own words about talking to someone to kill our president."]

The response came after a senator pressed the NBI on the logic of its investigation, arguing the bureau could not selectively believe one part of the Vice President's statements while dismissing another.

A senator at the hearing noted that the accumulating threats under investigation have now escalated in the agency's own framing to the level of national security concern.

"Dahil doon sa pagbabanta... umabot na doon na po sa level na ang nationality security," the senator said ["Because of those threats... it has now reached the level of national security"], citing confirmation from investigators that new, repeated threats keep surfacing.

The senator also pressed the NBI on what he described as a selective reading of evidence — accepting the plot-to-kill narrative while apparently setting aside other parts of the same speaker's statements, including allegations of massive corruption and flood control issues that he said had yet to be acted on.

Senator Allan Cayateno raised a sharp challenge to the NBI's investigative framework during the hearing, questioning whether the agency was applying its standards of belief selectively.

"If you're going to believe that may kausap siya at papapatayin tatlo" — that she had someone to talk to and planned to have three people killed — "will you not believe the previous [statement] nung sinabi niyang kung ako naman ang papatayan?" ["...when she said that she herself would be killed?"] the senator pressed.

The challenge goes to the heart of how investigators are treating VP Sara Duterte's own statements: if her alleged plot to kill is credible enough to drive a probe, the senator argued, her separate claim of being a target deserves equal weight.