LAWYERS for Vice President Sara Duterte have asked the Supreme Court to stop her impeachment trial, arguing that the proceedings are being conducted under a presiding officer whose authority was derived from what they described as a constitutionally invalid Senate action.
In a motion filed on July 6, 2026, the same day the impeachment trial opened, the petitioners said developments during the opening session confirmed what they called the “constitutional infirmity” of the Senate’s composition and leadership.
The motion asked the Supreme Court to issue a status quo ante order stopping the impeachment proceedings — already on its second day on Tuesday — while it resolves the constitutional issues surrounding the authority of the presiding officer.
The petitioners said that the trial may proceed only under validly adopted impeachment rules and a presiding officer whose authority is free from what the petitioners described as “serious and unresolved constitutional challenge.” This was the second time Duterte has gone to the Supreme Court to stop her impeachment trial. Following her first impeachment by the House of Representatives in February 2025, Duterte successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to block the trial.
‘Bloodied but unbowed’
Duterte visited at the Senate on Tuesday, not to testify, but to tell the public that she will be unbowed.
Duterte’s visit came as the first witness of her impeachment trial took the stand to confirm the authenticity of the video press conference that Duterte held in November 2024, where she said she had contracted an assassin to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., first lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former speaker Martin Romualdez if she herself was killed.
Duterte did not take any questions from the media who were at the press briefing at the defense media holding room at the Sotto Hall of the Senate, but she only imparted a short statement.
“In this bloodbath and bludgeoning, I will be bloodied but unbowed,” Duterte said, quoting parts of the poem “Invictus” by William Ernest Henley.
Impeachment adviser and defense spokesman Robert Ace Barbers said that while it is Duterte’s right to issue a statement, it did not answer the allegations against her.
“Now is the time to present the evidence, examine the evidence, scrutinize the evidence and listen to the evidence. That evidence will ultimately serve as the basis for the judgment of our judges — our senator-judges — when the time comes,” Barbers said.
First prosecution witness
At the trial, the House prosecution on Tuesday opened its presentation of evidence with testimony from a National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) cybercrime investigator who authenticated a video supporting the impeachment charge that Duterte made grave threats against the country’s top officials.
NBI Senior Agent John Mark Calilung told the Senate Impeachment Court that he served as the “agent on case” in the agency’s investigation into Duterte’s threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., first lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez.
“It means that I viewed, identified, preserved, collected and authenticated digital evidence in the course of the investigation,” Calilung said during direct examination by lawyer Amando Virgil Ligutan, counsel for the House prosecutors.
Among the evidence gathered by the NBI was the video of Duterte’s Nov. 23 online press briefing livestreamed on the Facebook page of former presidential spokesman Harry Roque.
It took place while Duterte was outside the House detention facility where her chief of staff, lawyer Zuleika Lopez, was being held after being cited in contempt by the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability during its inquiry into the Office of the Vice President’s use of confidential funds.
Calilung testified that he authenticated the recording by comparing a screen-recorded copy with the original livestream.
“After screen recording, there’s an output video. I compared the output video with the Nov. 23, 2024 video and ensured that the contents are identical,” he said.
The NBI agent said he then generated a hash value to preserve the integrity of the recording.
“After ensuring that the contents are identical, I generated a hash value calculation on the video to ensure that the video won’t be tampered until presented in court,” he said.
After Calilung identified the relevant timestamp, prosecutors played the authenticated portion of the recording before the impeachment court.
In the video, Duterte said: “Huwag kang mag-alala, ma’am, sa security ko, kasi may kinausap na ako na tao. Sinabi ko sa kanya, kapag pinatay ako, patayin mo si BBM, si Liza Araneta, at si Martin Romualdez. No joke. No joke. Nagbilin na ako, ma’am, ‘pag namatay ako, sabi ko, huwag ka tumigil, ha, hanggang ’di mo mapatay sila. And then he said yes. (Don’t worry ma’am, about my security, because I have already talked to someone. I told him, if they kill me, kill BBM, Liza Araneta and Martin Romualdez. No joke, no joke. I have already given my instructions ma’am. If I die, I said don’t stop until you kill them all. And then he said yes).” He said the NBI also submitted a request to Meta, Facebook’s parent company, to preserve the recording and later executed an Affidavit of Authentication of Digital Evidence documenting the forensic process.
Calilung said he recovered the Oct. 18 video while searching for previous public statements by Duterte that were similar to those she made during her Nov. 23 press conference. He added that he used Open Broadcaster Software and other digital verification methods to authenticate the recordings.
In the Oct. 18, 2024 press briefing, Duterte was heard saying she wanted to chop off the head of President Marcos and imagined him being beheaded. She also addressed his sister, Sen. Imee Marcos, saying that if the senator did not stop her brother, she would dig up the remains of their father, the late president Ferdinand Marcos Sr., and throw them into the West Philippine Sea.
With Calilung’s testimony, the prosecution laid the evidentiary foundation for the presentation of additional witnesses and documentary evidence on the fourth Article of Impeachment.
Threats a betrayal of trust
House Prosecutor and Iloilo Rep. Lorenz Defensor said the threats against the first couple and former speaker “betrayed the trust expected of the country’s second-highest official.” “At the heart of this impeachment proceeding lies a fundamental question for all of us: Can we continue to entrust one of the highest constitutional offices to a public official who, on multiple occasions, purposely and willfully, and repeatedly, resorted to threats of violence against the very institutions that she swore to uphold and protect?” Defensor said.
Private prosecutor Amando Virgil Ligutan said that the evidence that will be presented in the article of grave threats are not just derived from testimonies or authenticated documents, but also from Duterte’s own words and own admissions. He said such statements from an official constitutionally designated to succeed the president of the Republic go beyond the exercise of one’s freedom of expression, but “strike at the very heart of government.” “This is especially significant given that she has publicly declared her intention to run for president in the next election,” he added.
Escudero role questioned
The impeachment trial began on Monday with Sen. Francis Escudero presiding after 12 of the 21 senators present voted to elect him as presiding officer.
Duterte’s motion before the Supreme Court challenged the Senate’s June 3, 2026 proceeding that amended Rule 2 of the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials to allow the election of a presiding officer in impeachment cases not involving the president.
The petitioners argued that the amendment was unconstitutional because the Senate allegedly acted without a quorum, failed to comply with the required one-day advance notice before amending its rules and adopted the change while sitting in its ordinary legislative capacity instead of as an impeachment court, which had already adopted its own rules on May 18, 2026.
The petitioners argued that only 12 of the Senate’s 24 members were recorded present during the June 3 session, which they said did not constitute the majority required by the Constitution. They maintained that, without a quorum, the Senate could only adjourn or compel the attendance of absent members.
They also cited the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, arguing that the framers intended the Senate president to preside over all impeachment trials except those involving the president, in which the chief justice presides.
During the opening of the impeachment trial on July 6, Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano questioned Escudero’s authority to preside through a point of order. Escudero overruled the objection, saying the resolution amending Rule 2 had been duly approved and that any challenge should be resolved either in a Senate plenary session or by the Supreme Court.
The petitioners argued that “institutional integrity, jurisdictional regularity and due process all require that impeachment proceedings be conducted only under a presiding officer whose authority to preside is beyond serious constitutional question.” They also noted that “even members of the Senate are unable to agree on so fundamental a question as who may validly preside over the trial of petitioner vice president.” The petition was filed by the Law Firm of Torreon and Partners on behalf of several petitioners led by lawyers Israelito Torreon, Resci Angelli Rizada-Nolasco and Martin Delgra III.
“Petitioners do not ask this honorable court to choose Senate officers, manage ordinary legislative business or supervise the internal politics of the Senate,” the motion said. “Petitioners ask only that the Court determine whether the impeachment trial is being conducted before a tribunal whose presiding officer derives authority from constitutionally valid proceedings.” The impeachment trial continues while the Supreme Court has yet to act on the motion. WITH PNA