LIVE | Vice Pres. Sara Duterte Impeachment Trial Day 3 (July 8, 2026) #VPSaraOnTrial

Summary of Day 3 Proceedings (July 8, 2026) — Impeachment Trial of Vice President Sara Duterte

1) Court Opening and Procedural “Housekeeping”

• The impeachment court convened with the Senate President and presiding officers seated; prayer was led by Senator Pia Kayatano.
• The clerk called the case, and both parties appeared for the record (prosecution and respondent).
• The court addressed “house rules” and “televised proceeding” fairness issues, particularly:
  • how counsel’s question phrasing can prejudice the record, and
  • how counsel “perorations” (extended arguments) may blur evidentiary boundaries.
• The presiding officer warned both sides against improper questioning and/or presenting arguments through extended statements, emphasizing that witnesses should present evidence rather than counsel delivering law/fact arguments.
• Additional instructions were issued to keep the tone down (referencing “echo chamber” concerns).
• A break was planned midway so the parties could review.

2) Primary Witness: NBI Agent John Mark Khalilong — Cross-Examination Focus

• The court allowed cross-examination under the same oath as prior testimony.
• A recurring theme was evidentiary procedure. The prosecution objected to defense tactics such as:
  • requiring yes/no-only answers,
  • showing documents/screenshots without proper marking or without first laying the foundation through questions, and
  • confronting the witness with documents not yet admitted into evidence.
• The presiding officer repeatedly ruled that the witness was experienced and could respond, and that counsel could correct non-responsive answers during redirect/recross as permitted.

a) Authentication/Training and Technical Competence Disputes

• Khalilong testified he received training on photo/video authentication and digital forensics through Maxcore Interventures.
• He presented himself as a competent witness rather than a formal “expert.”
• Senator judges probed whether the authentication process could reliably identify AI-generated content.
• Khalilong later indicated that the video he reviewed was authentic based on his comparison and observation, while acknowledging that modern AI can be difficult to distinguish in general.

b) Corporate/Website Materials and Documentary Relevance Issues

• During cross, the defense used:

  • “articles of partnership,” and
  • screenshots from Maxcore-related websites to establish training background and company purpose.

• The prosecution challenged the defense’s presentation method, including whether the documents were properly introduced for evidentiary purposes.

c) DOJ Certification and the “Seven Recommendations” Controversy

• A major part of the cross focused on a DOJ certification/referral assessment allegedly identifying deficiencies in the investigation affidavit.
• The defense had Khalilong discuss alleged “recommendations/grounds,” later enumerated as seven points, including:
  • missing affidavits from persons who recorded/stored the video,
  • missing recordings/TSNs for certain sessions,
  • missing affidavits for journalists/recorders/TSN makers,
  • absence of USB attachment (DVD only),
  • reliance only on minutes without individual affidavits,
  • complainant/offended party issues (only the NBI executed relevant affidavits; offended parties allegedly not included).
• The respondent argued these issues were corrected/handled in later revised affidavits, and that DOJ ultimately issued a certification that the evidence was sufficient for preliminary investigation.

d) “Affected/Offended Parties” Not Included

• Cross suggested that the “offended parties” (notably President Marcos Jr., First Lady Lisa Marcos, and former Speaker Martin Romualdez) were not included as complainants in the DOJ filing.
• Khalilong largely responded that he lacked personal knowledge about complaints filed by those figures, or that NBI proceeded with case buildup and revised documentation.

e) Investigation Scope and Sources of Knowledge

• Cross examined how Khalilong knew about the events:
  • he was not a participant at the November 23, 2024 press conference, and
  • he claimed he acquired knowledge after the press conference and investigated later that same day using open-source recording/OBS and related materials.
• Additional questions addressed whether NBI coordinated with other agencies (PSG/National Security structures) and whether investigating “threats” required PSG involvement.

3) Video Evidence Playback and Transcription Issues

• The court permitted the prosecution’s exhibit (a USB/video labeled P-4-10) to be unsealed and played for limited timestamp segments.
• Khalilong was asked about specific exchanges in the video, including references to alleged threats and related people (e.g., Attorney Zulika Lopez and associated Chief of Staff context).
• A major dispute involved transcription accuracy:
  • The defense/participants compared Khalilong’s written transcript against what was allegedly said in the video.
  • When questioned whether the transcript contained specific words (e.g., “detainee” / “accused”), the court ruled the questioning relevant to testing transcription accuracy/truthfulness.

4) Redirect/Clarifications Through Judge Questioning

After cross concluded, judges asked clarificatory questions on:

• social media analytics experience,
• AI authenticity reasoning,
• investigation of participants/media personalities and subpoenaed individuals,
• training background and competencies (including international/local training references).

5) Senator Judge Interrogation: Legal Framing and “Circumstantial” Assessment

Judges pressed Khalilong on:

• the meaning of “moto proprio”/initiative versus a directed investigation,
• the governance/control relationship between DOJ and NBI,
• whether the threats were assessed as conditional versus absolute based on the affidavit/records.
• Khalilong stated that NBI proceeded based on DOJ-related direction/certifications and described threat assessment using established considerations (e.g., seriousness, capability of the source, and delivery method).

6) Ending Phase: Witness Excused; Next Witnesses Scheduled

• Khalilong was excused after submitting certifications and completing the day’s testimony.
• Administrative and scheduling matters were discussed:
  • Trial adjourned to Monday, July 13, 2026, with an afternoon start (2:00 p.m.).
  • The prosecution indicated attorney Jeremy Lotok would be the next witness on Monday, with further schedule changes confirmed during the session.

7) Respondent’s Closing Remarks During the Day’s Proceedings (via Counsel Statement)

Later in the day, respondent’s counsel delivered argument/manifestation emphasizing:

• the prosecution allegedly admitted the video only proves its existence, not proof of an assassin being contracted,
• respondent’s view that the remarks concerned threats to VP Sara Duterte and her family (linked to the “Operation Romanov” narrative), and
• a jurisdictional argument that the grave threats/inciting to sedition allegations belong to lower courts, not impeachment as “high crimes.”

---

Key Presenters / Contributors (as Named in the Subtitles)

Impeachment Court / Presiding Leadership

• Senate President Gachelan
• Presiding Officer: Judge Escodero
• Sergeant-at-Arms (proclamation reference)

Senators / Senate Judge Panel (Named)

• Senator Pia Kayatano
• Senator Aino Kayatano Allan (autotranscribed variants: “Aino / Kaitano / Allan”)
• Senator Rafi Tulfo
• Senator Marcos
• Senator Antiveros (named as “Anteveros”)
• Senator Villanueva (named as “Villainovva/Villan Nova” variants)
• Senator Padilia
• Senator Zubiri
• Senator Lapid (named as “Laxon/Luxon/Lakson” variants)
• Senator De la Rosa (named in the opening roll)
• Senator Pangilina
• Senator Lagarda
• Senator Marcos (appears in judge panel rotation)
• Senator Sto. III (named in the roll)

Prosecution / Respondent Counsel

• Attorney Leutan (Council for Prosecutors)
• Attorney Narvasa (for respondent / vice president)
• Attorney Steven Magalon (approached/used to peruse documents)
• Attorney Jeremy Lotok (scheduled prosecution witness on Monday)
• Attorney Zulika Lopez (scheduled prosecution witness)
• Representative/attorney names referenced for exhibits/context, including:
  • JV Lawrence B. Bandong (referenced in DOJ certification)
• Mark Civluan (identified as counsel for the vice president)

Witness

• NBI Senior Agent John Mark Khalilong (primary witness)

Other Figures Referenced in Testimony/Documents

• Ret. Judge Haimed B. Santiago (former NBI director referenced in letters)
• JV Lawrence B. Bandong (Senior Assistant State Prosecutor referenced in DOJ certification)
• Ferdinand Marcos Jr.
• Lisa Marcos
• Martin Romualdez
• Attorney Zulika Lopez (referenced in video context as Chief of Staff)