RIVERMAN’S VISTA | Sara Duterte on trial: Days 4 to 6 through a Mindanao lens

QUEZON CITY (MindaNews / 17 July 2026) – Vice President Sara Duterte skipped three more trial days. The impeachment trial finished its second week. Mindanao’s fingerprints were all over the proceedings.

The star witness directs the NBI in Bangsamoro. The wealth allegations trace back to Davao City Hall. The trial spokesperson represents Lanao del Sur in Congress. Protesters have marched in Davao’s Freedom Park. Surveys show Mindanao leaning toward the defense.

Day 4: Bangsamoro’s top agent testifies

Jeremy Lotoc took the stand on July 13. He directs the NBI in Bangsamoro. He earlier headed the bureau’s Cybercrime Division. That unit probed her November 2024 press conference.

Lotoc called the threats real and serious. Duterte showed intent, motive, and capability, he testified. Investigators authenticated the video and reviewed seven timestamps. The NBI finished its affidavit in February 2025.

It recommended three counts of grave threats. It added one count of inciting to sedition. Lotoc rejected the free speech defense outright. Excusing such remarks would invite anarchy, he warned.

The defense attacked the paperwork on cross-examination. Lawyers flagged clashing dates and mismatched docket numbers. One subpoena predated the press conference it concerned.

The presiding officer noted the typo pileup. Senator Bam Aquino pressed on the alleged hitman. Lotoc admitted the NBI never identified any assassin. He insisted the evidence pointed to a plot. The session stretched past 8 p.m.

Day 5: Davao enters the record

Cross-examination of Lotoc continued on July 14. He tied her capability to her father’s ICC case. The elder Duterte faces charges over drug war killings.

Typos never altered the findings, Lotoc maintained. The term Oplan Romanov got a Davao origin story. Mayor Sebastian Duterte first used it at a rally. He described alleged threats against the Marcos family. The mayor has framed the impeachment as persecution.

He called it a three-year plan against his sister. Its goal, he claimed, was blocking her 2028 run. Malacañang pushed back on that theory. Foreknowledge should have meant careful fund handling, it said.

The prosecution then trimmed its witness list. Chief of staff Zuleika Lopez was withdrawn. House security officer Belinda Bello was dropped.

Prosecutors called their testimonies redundant after Lotoc. Defense counsel touted Duterte’s 80 percent bar grade. Senator judges have drawn their own scrutiny. Some briefly left the hall during testimony. Cayetano once stepped out for an hour.

An NBI side controversy also erupted midweek. Director Matibag vowed to probe SEA Games anomalies. Senators Padilla and the Cayetanos took offense. Matibag denied dictating to the impeachment court.

Day 6: The Davao money trail

July 15 shifted from witnesses to oral arguments. At stake were subpoenas for financial records. The paper trail runs straight through Davao City Hall.

Rep. Chel Diokno argued for the prosecution. Each side got fifteen minutes plus rebuttal. He cited AMLC figures from Duterte’s Davao years. Her financial activity topped P3.02 billion from 2007 to 2013. Transactions peaked at P704.93 million in 2009.

VP Duterte served as Davao vice mayor and mayor then. Her income was a fraction of those flows. The AMLC has flagged P6.8 billion since 2006. Those transactions involve accounts linked to the couple.

Nothing can handcuff this court’s power, Diokno declared. He invoked the Bank Secrecy Law’s impeachment exception. He cited the 2012 Corona precedent.

Defense counsel Michael Poa answered for Duterte. He called the request a fishing expedition. The subpoenas were fatally overbroad, he argued. A Davao vice mayor holds no impeachable office. Impeachment is no magic wand, he told senators.

Poa objected to covering husband Manases Carpio. Carpio holds no impeachable office either, he noted. Confidentiality laws protect those records, he added. Overriding them means judicial legislation, he warned.

Senators caucused for over an hour afterward. They deferred the ruling to Monday, July 20.

Escudero praised both lawyers for a civil debate.

The court still approved four witness subpoenas. These cover the confidential funds article next week. Landbank president Lynette Ortiz will be summoned. Two bank employees will appear alongside her. A House archives custodian completes the list.

Senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano urged careful study. He split the request into separate questions. The husband’s coverage is one issue, he said. Peso, dollar, and company accounts raise distinct concerns.

The prosecution also cites her SALN trajectory. Her declared net worth was P34.89 million in 2016. It reached P88.51 million by 2024.

Prosecutors call that growth disproportionate to lawful income.

Duterte has denied all wrongdoing throughout. She calls the trial politically motivated and baseless. She branded it a waste of public resources. Her camp says the evidence proves nothing.

Analysts see the ruling shaping future impeachments too. One professor called it a make-or-break point. Denying access could let respondents hide behind secrecy. Granting it strengthens impeachment as an accountability tool.

Voices from our island

Davao itself has hosted visible impeachment rallies. Groups marched at Freedom Park on opening day. BAYAN Southern Mindanao led the Bantay Impeachment rally.

Participants called the trial long overdue accountability. Davao teachers’ groups criticized her DepEd record. Lumad organizations cited school closures. Youth groups rejected her confidential funds defense. They protested deliberately in Duterte territory.

Duterte still commands deep loyalty across the island. A new survey captures the regional divide. Mindanao leaned toward the defense at 34 percent. Twenty seven percent there favored the prosecution.

Nationally the prosecution held a slight 32-30 edge. About 38 percent of Filipinos remain undecided. Most respondents rate Escudero’s stewardship favorably.

BARMM lawmakers broke sharply for impeachment earlier. Seven of eight signed the original complaint. Mindanawons occupy key roles inside the trial. Lanao del Sur’s Zia Alonto Adiong speaks for prosecutors. Lotoc came from the Bangsamoro NBI office.

Elite defection tells one part of the story. Duterte allies have struggled to spark mass protests. Critics now march openly in the dynasty’s city. Most residents appear to watch and wait.

Who holds the advantage

The prosecution currently holds a slight evidentiary edge. Lotoc survived two days of aggressive cross-examination. His core findings emerged intact despite the typos.

The defense scored points on documentation sloppiness. It highlighted the missing hitman repeatedly. Bias questions targeted the NBI’s independence.

Lotoc conceded NBI recommendations bind no court.

The DOJ makes its own assessment, he said.

The subpoena ruling could prove the turning point. Both camps treat it as decisive. Granting it opens the Davao-era money trail. Denial would weaken much of Article II.

This week also showcased genuine lawyering talent.

Private prosecutor Amando Virgil Ligutan was my student in the College of Law of the University of the Philippines. He handled Lotoc’s direct examination with methodical precision. His questioning anchored the threats case impressively.

Chel Diokno was my dean at DLSU Law. His oral arguments were a masterclass in advocacy. The veteran dean argued with clarity and restraint.

Witness Lotoc equally deserves praise for his composure. He absorbed two days of cross without wavering. The Bangsamoro director made Mindanao’s NBI proud.

The defense had one shining moment too. Michael Poa argued the subpoena question with skill. His due process framing earned Escudero’s public commendation.

Poa elevated the debate beyond partisan noise.

The rest of the defense was disappointing. Mark Vinluan’s bar grade boast landed especially poorly. Escudero rebuked the irrelevant boast from the bench. Vinluan’s cross also lingered too long on typos.

The Cayetanos proved similarly fastidious over clerical errors. Typo hunting rarely decides an impeachment’s outcome. Substance will matter far more than stamps and dates. Senator judges should keep their eyes there.

The senator judges themselves earned mixed grades.

Bam Aquino stood out for even-handed rigor. He pressed the prosecution and defense alike.

Aquino demanded specifics about the alleged hitman. He also pressed the defense on Duterte’s denials.

Risa Hontiveros, who is not a lawyer, asked the sharpest legal question. She probed whether grave threats require an actual plot. Her exchange drew out Lotoc’s anarchy warning.

Robin Padilla cut a less impressive figure. He wandered out during crucial testimony. His interventions added heat instead of light. Senator-judges owe the nation better focus.

What comes next

The court rules on the subpoenas Monday, July 20. NBI Director Melvin Matibag testifies the next day. The prosecution then presses into Article I, before moving to Article IV. The presentation of evidence on the latter could last weeks.

The ruling on the subpoenas carries weight far beyond this trial. Bank secrecy expressly yields in impeachment cases. The court must map the limits of that exception. The Corona precedent favors opening the records.

I expect the defense to go to the Supreme Court in case of a ruling adverse to their client.

Two doctrinal questions now frame the entire trial. Must grave threats involve a proven plot? Can confidentiality statutes bind a constitutional court? The answers will outlive this particular respondent.

One more legal question deserves attention here. What quantum of evidence should convict a respondent? The Constitution stays silent on the standard.

I submit substantial evidence is the proper measure.

Impeachment is administrative rather than criminal in nature. The penalty is removal and disqualification, never imprisonment. Substantial evidence means relevant evidence a reasonable mind accepts. That standard governs administrative cases against public officers.

Some senators will still demand proof beyond reasonable doubt. That criminal standard belongs to liberty cases.

Each senator-judge ultimately picks a personal standard.

Substantial evidence best honors accountability and fairness alike.

Impeachment remains a legal proceeding at its core. Evidence, burden, and due process should decide it.

Whatever it is, Mindanao deserves a verdict grounded in law.

(Dean Antonio Gabriel La Viña is from Cagayan de Oro and is a professor of law, philosophy, politics, governance in several universities, including in Mindanao. He has been a human rights lawyer for 36 years. He is currently the managing partner of La Viña Zarate and Associates, a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, and Chair of the Jurisprudence and Legal Philosophy Department of the Philippine Judicial Academy. He is founding president of the Movement Against Disinformation and the founding chair of the Mindanao Climate Justice Resource Facility and the Mindanao Center for Scholarships, Sports, and Spirituality.)