VP Sara Duterte Impeachment Trial Day 3: Constitutional Challenge Amid Fiery Rhetoric

VP Sara Duterte Impeachment Trial Day 3: Constitutional Challenge Amid Fiery Rhetoric

By Bing Jabadan – TheNATIONWEEK.com | July 9, 2026

MANILA, Philippines – The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte entered its third day on Wednesday, July 8, with a significant legal challenge, as a team of her allies formally petitioned the Supreme Court to halt proceedings. They assert that the trial is fundamentally flawed due to constitutional irregularities surrounding the authority of its presiding officer, Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero.

This critical development follows a controversial shift in the Senate’s leadership. Senate President William Gatchalian, citing a lack of legal background, opted to serve as an observer rather than the traditional presiding officer. This unprecedented move, which led to Escudero’s election as presiding officer, has sparked widespread public commentary, including numerous satirical memes featuring Senator Gatchalian.

Duterte Allies Challenge Presiding Officer’s Legitimacy

Led by lawyer Israelito Torreon, a nine-member legal group submitted a “Very Urgent Manifestation with Motion” on July 7, 2026. The 16-page document requests a temporary restraining order (TRO) or a status quo ante order, directly questioning the legitimacy of Escudero’s election. The legal team contends that Escudero’s authority stems from a June 3 Senate session whose validity is concurrently under scrutiny by the Supreme Court.

The petitioners argue that the Senate’s amendment to its Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials, which enabled the election of a senator other than the Senate President as presiding officer, is void. They allege that the June 3 session lacked the requisite quorum and failed to adhere to procedural mandates, including the mandatory one-day notice before amending rules. This amendment was introduced via Senate Resolution No. 430, following Escudero’s alignment with Gatchalian’s bloc, which facilitated the Senate’s resumption of sessions and a leadership reorganization.

Should the Supreme Court invalidate the June 3 proceedings, the petitioners argue, Escudero’s authority to oversee the impeachment trial would similarly collapse. “The officer now presiding over the impeachment trial derives his claimed authority from the very June 3, 2026 proceedings whose validity is now pending before this honorable court,” the petition states. The lawyers underscore the urgency of their request, warning that each day the trial progresses under a disputed presiding officer further exacerbates the constitutional complexities.

This legal challenge follows earlier motions filed by Duterte’s camp seeking to block the impeachment process initiated by the House of Representatives. Senators Alan Peter and Pia Cayetano had also previously raised concerns regarding Escudero’s election during the Senate’s opening session.

Duterte’s Defiant Stance and the “Invictus” Echo

As the impeachment trial commenced, Vice President Duterte maintained a defiant posture. On July 6, 2026, her legal team filed a motion asserting the “constitutional infirmity” of the Senate’s current structure, requesting a status quo ante order to halt the trial pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of constitutional questions surrounding the presiding officer’s authority. This marks Duterte’s second appeal to the Supreme Court to intervene in her impeachment, having successfully blocked an earlier trial in February 2025.

In a notable appearance at the Senate on Tuesday, Duterte delivered a powerful message to the public. She declared, “In this bloodbath and bludgeoning, I will be bloodied but unbowed,” quoting lines from William Ernest Henley’s poem “Invictus.” Her visit coincided with the testimony of the first witness, who affirmed the authenticity of a November 2024 video press conference. In the video, Duterte allegedly stated her intention to hire an assassin to eliminate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former Speaker Martin Romualdez if she were to be killed.

Robert Ace Barbers, an impeachment adviser and defense spokesman, acknowledged Duterte’s right to issue a statement but emphasized the current imperative for evidence. “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 stated.

Prosecution Unveils Key Digital Evidence

The House prosecution panel initiated its evidentiary presentation with testimony from National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Senior Agent John Mark Calilung, a cybercrime investigator. Calilung authenticated a video crucial to the impeachment charge alleging Duterte made grave threats against top government officials.

Serving as the “agent on case” for the NBI’s investigation into Duterte’s alleged threats, Calilung detailed his role in viewing, identifying, preserving, collecting, and authenticating digital evidence. He testified to verifying the integrity of a screen-recorded copy of Duterte’s November 23 online press briefing—livestreamed on former presidential spokesman Harry Roque’s Facebook page—by comparing it with the original and generating a hash value to prevent tampering.

The press briefing occurred while Duterte was outside the House detention facility where her chief of staff, lawyer Zuleika Lopez, was held for contempt by the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability during an inquiry into the Office of the Vice President’s use of confidential funds.

After Calilung identified the relevant timestamp, prosecutors played the authenticated segment of the recording for the impeachment court. In the video, Duterte is heard saying: “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.” (Don’t worry, ma’am, about my security, because I’ve already talked to someone. I told him, if I’m killed, kill BBM, Liza Araneta, and Martin Romualdez. No joke. No joke. I’ve already given instructions.)

Cost of Impeachment: Discrepancy Between Allocation and Expenditure

The impeachment trial has drawn attention to its financial implications. While the Philippine Senate initially allocated a ₱27 million budget for the trial, actual out-of-pocket expenses were limited to approximately ₱500,000. This spending primarily covered the procurement of about 60 official robes for senator-judges and other preliminary court essentials. Although the Senate estimated it could spend an additional ₱12.6 million if the trial had proceeded on daily operational costs like security and food, the Supreme Court officially halted the proceedings on constitutional grounds. As the funds fall under continuing appropriations, unspent money from the Philippine Senate allocation is set to be returned to the national treasury. This contrasts sharply with the struggles of ordinary citizens grappling with basic necessities, such as the P20.00 kilo of rice, highlighting a significant divergence in public priorities and governmental expenditure.

*         *         *

Influence the Influential. Power Truth. TheNATIONWEEK.com

More than news: we are a defining force in independent journalism, delivering rigorous, unbiased reporting to an engaged, opinion-shaping audience that values integrity. Partner with us to align your brand with trust, reach discerning leaders, and amplify your impact. Your message. Our mission. Unrivaled engagement. Email nationweek@yahoo.com today.