[OPINION] Duterte impeachment trial Day 6: In search of a smoking gun

In sum, the defense opposed it, calling it an “fishing expedition.”  The prosecution should not be allowed “to accuse now” and “to prove later” with the acquisition and opening of the bank, tax, and AMLC documents. “Unlimited search”—that is all the prosecution wanted, the defense said.

It was also improper, the defense said, to investigate Duterte’s wealth when she was still a vice mayor, a position not covered by an impeachment.  

There is no law—AMLC, Bank Secrecy Law included—that prohibits the disclosure, said prosecutor Chel Diokno. To prohibit it is to deny the court its power to do so.

Defense counsel maintained that the court must accord Duterte her right to due process, as provided for the Bill of Rights. The records were confidential, and covered by exceptions provided by law.

The court held a caucus, or met in an executive session, and came back about an hour later to say that it has decided to question both panels in an open hearing for their respective positions of the two panels and subsequently make a decision correspondingly on July 20, the seventh day of the trial. The senators wanted more time to study the contentious positions.

House prosecutors had previously secured the AMLC report, thanks to a newly-appointed executive director, lawyer Ronel Buenaventura, who appeared in the House Justice committee hearing and disclosed what was otherwise considered a confidential report under the Bank Secrecy law on April 22, 2026, eight days after his appointment.

The defense said Buenaventura’s disclosure was inappropriate, if not unlawful.

Buenaventura told the House hearing that the AMLC database flagged 630 covered transactions and 33 suspicious transactions linked to the Duterte couple between 2006 and 2025, covering transactions worth billions of pesos.

But the AMLC report seemed not enough, as House prosecutors asked the court to secure and open their financial statements as held by private banks, to flesh out the alleged flagged transactions. The disclosure of the bank statements, if and when allowed, would provide details on the AMLC report showing Duterte's bank accounts, deposits, withdrawals, and balances.

Tax officials had brought Duterte-Carpio’s tax record to the House hearing in sealed boxes, but refused to open the boxes as it is prohibited by law. The prosecutors sent the BIR boxes to the Senate, but the court, at the opening of the trial, returned these to the BIR.

If the excitement of several prosecutors were any indication, the opening of the tax and bank records and AMLC reports could probably reveal what they had been waiting for—the smoking gun that could pin Duterte for culpable violations of the 1987 Constitution and kick her out of the May 2028 elections.

The defense promised to oppose all that every step of the way.

‘Mahinahon, malumanay, maginoo’

However contentious, Diokno and defense counsel Michael Poa argued their respective positions without the usual friction between the two opposing parties

Escudero praised the two gentlemen, especially since the court opened with tense manifestations from Senators Robin Padilla, Alan Peter Cayetano, and sister Pia.

Diokno managed to cut across the noise, according to Rep. Renee Co, another prosecutor, and get through closer to the getting of what could have been the smoking gun.

The hearing on Article II is expected to make a shift, from the drama caused by the video to questions on bank statements.

While the public is "at a loss" because video threats are emotional and open to interpretation, the bank statements and tax returns are not, these are cold, unequivocal evidence.

The prosecution said the defense cannot argue that P3.9 billion in flagged bank transactions is "just a figure of speech." They cannot argue that writing "zero cash in bank" on its statements of assets and liabilities, showing dozens of active accounts, is a "misinterpretation of text."

The defense can’t handcuff the court to suppress the court. “Ang katotohanan ay hindi confidential,” Diokno said.

For the defense, this isn't a smoking gun the prosecution claims it is, but just a fabricated "fishing expedition." Pure and simple.

Things would get clearer by Monday. But nothing stopped the prosecution from articulating in a subsequent news conference.

Poa and other defense counsels maintained their restraint.

The court tackled the opening of the bank, tax, and AMLC records after the prosecution withdrew the presentation of two more witnesses: lawyer Zuleika Lopez, Duterte’s chief of staff, and Capt. Belinda Belo, House executive director for security, leaving a vacuum. The appearance of six more witnesses was withdrawn.

There was no need to put Lopez and Belo on the witness stand, as the prosecution said it had heard and sealed enough information in the testimony of NBI regional director Jeremy Lotoc, though critics had a field day claiming that Lopez could upset the prosecution of whatever gains it got the past week, and thus the withdrawal from the roll.

Whether or not Duterte’s violations—based on Lotoc’s testimony on Article IV constituted a culpable violation of the 1987 Constitution, under betrayal of trust—remained in the hands of the senator-judges.

Neither the prosecution nor the defense could clearly claim that it had hit the jackpot as of the fifth hearing. Some eureka moments, yes; but not a jackpot.

Hearing on Article IV would resume on July 21, with lawyer Melvin Matibag, NBI director, as witness for the prosecution.

Alan Vs. Melvin

Next to the scheduling, the Senate hearing suffered a few minutes of delay at the outset after Padilla and the Cayetano siblings took the floor, taking exception on reports that Matibag had announced that the NBI was investigating reports of unliquidated funds and unbid projects regarding certain infrastructures in the 2019 Southeast Asian Games, which would seek their incarceration to remove them from the trial. “Go investigate,” said Sen. Alan Peter, of Matibag, “but make no announcement so as not to affect the integrity of the trial.”

The court played a video showing Matibag’s announcement.

Sen. Pia stood up and said she was upset with the news, and that she would stand by members of the court, if they faced “similar” harassment. “No one should be allowed to pressure the judges.” It prompted the presiding officer, Sen. Chiz Escudero, to call for a recess.

Given his hostile relations with the Cayetanos, Matibag’s appearance on July 21 is expectedly going to be marred by fire and fury.

Matibag is a lawyer, a very vocal one. He joined the NBI as its chief only last February 2026, months after former judge Jaime Santiago resigned, amid allegations of corruption against him.

But some people believed that Santiago had to resign because the Palace wanted Matibag in.

Matibag can match Cayetano in terms of grandstanding. Ironically, Matibag was once upon a time a rabid supporter of former President Rodrigo Duterte, defending him against critics, including former Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III.  He joined the Marcos camp because the Duterte administration reportedly failed to give him the top Comelec post. Since his NBI appointment, his former friends in the Duterte camp believed that Matibag has since been carrying water for the Marcos administration.

Cayetano and Matibag are expected to go tit for tat in the July 21 hearing. How the court will stand between them remains to be seen.

Cayetano felt Matibag had unduly, publicly humiliated him on various issues, including the violent shooting in the Senate.

Being a senator and a member of the court Cayetano is expected to get even. In any case, Matibag seems ready for a showdown.
 
Some people believed that Matibag is the prosecution’s ace witness on Article IV. He is expected to reveal—or name the prosecution’s smoking gun.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the opinions of PhilSTAR L!fe, its parent company and affiliates, or its staff.