LIVE | Vice Pres. Sara Duterte Impeachment Trial Day 2 (July 7, 2026) #VPSaraOnTrial

Summary of Day 2 (July 7, 2026) — Vice President Sara Duterte Impeachment Trial

Opening of proceedings and court posture

• The impeachment court convened with a quorum and approved the previous day’s journal (July 6, 2026), with the presiding officer (Senator Judge Escodero) acting on the record.
• The session included an invocation by Senator Alan Kitano, emphasizing:
  • adherence to the Constitution and impeachment rules,
  • fairness, political neutrality, and due process,
  • accountability “from barangay captain to the highest official,”
  • opposition to “weaponized” justice and injustice.

Threshold / legal-issues discussion (2/3 conviction requirement)

• A major procedural/legal inquiry centered on the presiding officer’s opening statement that conviction requires the concurrence of two-thirds of all Senate members.
• Senator Judge Laxon questioned whether this was merely an opinion or an actual court ruling, and whether it creates a justiciable controversy possibly reviewable by the Supreme Court.
• The presiding officer affirmed it was effectively treated as a ruling/position of the chair that was not objected to or appealed.
• Additional clarifications raised by other senators included:
  • how “all members” is interpreted (counting senators while they remain members until death/removal/resignation),
  • the existence of a pending Supreme Court case (referenced as Kayatano vs. Aino),
  • concerns about whether certain senators (e.g., Marcoa and Estrada) should be allowed to vote.

Prosecution start: Article 4 (grave threats / sedition-related allegations)

• The prosecution announced Article 4’s framing: it would present evidence to show Duterte committed acts betraying public trust, culpable constitutional violations, and high crimes, anchored on Duterte’s alleged public statements (via live broadcast) that she contracted someone to assassinate:
  • the president,
  • the first lady, and
  • the former House Speaker.
• The defense objected to the prosecution’s introduction as improper “manifestation” resembling evidentiary argument.
• The court denied a motion to strike the opening material, but instructed the judges not to treat those statements as evidence; evidence must be introduced through sworn witnesses and subject to examination.

First witness: NBI Senior Agent John Mark Santa Khalilong (digital forensics / OSINT)

The prosecution’s first witness was an NBI senior agent who testified on digital forensics and the authenticity of online materials.

Training, role, and competence

• He testified to experience in digital forensics and training (including photo/video authentication).
• He claimed competence from courtroom experience (“appeared in court multiple times”).
• He stated his work involves identifying, preserving, collecting, analyzing, and presenting digital evidence.

Preservation and authentication of the main video (Nov. 23, 2024 press conference)

• He testified that:
  • the relevant video was publicly available and was captured/preserved,
  • preservation requests were initiated to Meta/Facebook,
  • he had screenshots of the preservation requests and Meta acknowledgment,
  • Meta allegedly assigned a case number for the preservation requests.
• He further preserved/authenticated the video by:
  • screen-recording it using OBS (Open Broadcaster Software),
  • comparing the recorded output to the original,
  • generating a hash value to ensure integrity, and
  • executing an affidavit of authentication (dated Jan. 30, 2025).

Documentary disputes (photocopies vs originals; certified true copies)

• There was extensive back-and-forth on admissibility and document handling, including:
  • whether printed screenshots and photocopies qualify as originals,
  • “certified true copy” markings,
  • missing/unclear annexes in affidavits (USB/CD claims, blank attachments, missing hash files),
  • and whether defense documents were faithfully reproduced.
• The court generally ruled that many objections were premature until formal offering of exhibits, and it allowed the prosecution to proceed with the witness subject to later rulings.

Context and video excerpting (Rule 132 / playing only parts)

• The prosecution sought to show only a 2-minute and 18-second portion from a longer video (approx. 2 hours 26 minutes).
• The defense argued the prosecution should play the entire video for context.
• The court overruled the defense objection at that stage, allowing the shortened playback, but later clarified:
  • if the defense presents the whole video during its evidence-in-chief, it will be allowed,
  • the purpose of showing only snippets was time efficiency while still supporting the prosecution’s allegations.

Content linked to alleged threats

• The prosecution elicited specific timestamps where Duterte allegedly said lines such as:
  • “No joke” and a follow-up confirmation that someone she talked to/contracted could be involved in killing the president, first lady, and former House Speaker.
• The witness also testified that the prosecution performed OSINT and identified similar statements in earlier Duterte press conferences, including:
  • an Oct. 18, 2024 event with alleged similar violent phrasing (e.g., “cutting someone’s head”).
• The witness connected the authenticity/authentication chain for these earlier materials as part of the prosecution’s intent/context theory.

Cross-examination issues: rules, leading questions, and fairness

• During questioning, defense counsel raised repeated procedural objections (often alleging leading, misleading, vagueness, or improper narration/characterization).
• The court repeatedly:
  • overruled some objections,
  • required questions to be properly laid with foundations (especially for timestamps and specific statements),
  • and limited dilatory tactics (e.g., time limits; “five minutes” bounds implied by rulings).

Other materials and additional statements (government agencies)

• The prosecution also presented screenshots and stated-agency references from:
  • Armed Forces of the Philippines,
  • Philippine National Police,
  • National Security Council / Presidential Communications Office context,
  • and other materials allegedly treating Duterte’s statements as threats.
• Each was supported by the witness’s claim of screenshot authenticity comparisons.

Handling of “other persons” (interviews / affidavits; hearsay rulings)

• The prosecution presented the witness’s interviews (minutes/affidavits) with other individuals alleged to have been present on Nov. 23, 2024 and to have heard Duterte’s statements.
• The defense objected to parts as hearsay.
• The court made a tenor distinction:
  • admissible as the fact that the interviewee made the statement to the witness, not as proof of the truth of the underlying content.

End of direct; adjournment for cross-examination continuation

• The day ended with the prosecution witness still under direct/custody procedures.
• The session adjourned to 2:00 p.m. Wednesday, July 8, 2026 for continuation, specifically cross-examination.

---

Presenters / Contributors (as named in the subtitles)

• Senator Alan Kitano (led prayer)
• Senate President / presiding officer: Senator Chisero (referred to as presiding officer in the narration)
• Presiding officer (later referred to as): Senator Judge Escodero
• Clerk of Court (administered oath / called role)
• Lead prosecutor: Representative (Congressman) Luis
• Lead prosecutor for Article 4: Congressman Lawrence Defensor
• Prosecutor panel counsel: Attorney Laura Capunan (also referenced: Attorney Virgil Liutan / Amando Virgil Descartin Liutan as examiner)
• Defense counsel: not clearly named in the subtitles (respondent council referenced generally)
• Witness (prosecution): NBI Senior Agent John Mark Santa Khalilong
• Other NBI individuals referenced (interview witnesses): Dempsey Reyes, Bon Mangambul (spelled variably)

Senator judges (listed during roll call; names as referenced)

Aino, Kayano, Kayatano Pia, delosa, Set Judgeito, Estrada, Go, Oniveros, Laxon, Lapid, Lagarda, Marcoa, Marcos, Padilia, Pangilinan, Sto III, Tulfo Irwin, Tulfo Rafi, Villian Noeva, Villar Camille, Villar Mark, Zubiri, plus Senators Gayano, Kayatano, Risa, Rafi Tulfo, Pangalinan (as referenced mid-proceedings).