NARVASA CHALLENGES NBI'S INVESTIGATION INTO VP SARA DUTERTE

The second week of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte featured an extensive cross-examination by defense counsel Atty. Carlo Narvasa, who scrutinized how the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) initiated its investigation into Duterte's November 23, 2024 press briefing.

Rather than focusing immediately on the alleged statements themselves, the defense concentrated on the circumstances surrounding the investigation—who ordered it, how it began, and whether the investigating agency acted independently.

"Motu Proprio" or Directed by the DOJ?

Narvasa first questioned NBI Senior Agent John Mark Calilung regarding statements in his affidavit indicating that the investigation was both "motu proprio" and undertaken upon the direction of the Department of Justice (DOJ).

When asked what he meant by motu proprio, Calilung explained that the investigation commenced even without a private complainant.

However, when Narvasa asked about the phrase "directed investigation," the witness responded that there had been an "instruction from above."

Pressed to clarify what he meant by "above," Calilung answered that he was referring to the Department of Justice.

The prosecution objected to portions of the questioning, arguing that several questions had become argumentative. Presiding Officer Sen. Francis Escudero sustained some of the objections while allowing the defense to continue its cross-examination.

Defense Raises Chain of Command

Narvasa then shifted the discussion to the organizational structure of the government.

During questioning, Calilung confirmed that:

• The NBI is under the Department of Justice;

• The DOJ forms part of the Executive Branch;

• President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is the head of the Executive Branch.

The defense highlighted that President Marcos is also among the individuals identified as the alleged offended parties in the case arising from the Vice President's statements.

Narvasa attempted to summarize that the NBI conducted the investigation, the DOJ directed it, and the President headed both agencies through the Executive Branch.

Before the witness could answer fully, the prosecution objected on the ground that the question was compound, prompting Narvasa to withdraw it.

Timeline of the Investigation Examined

The defense also examined when the investigation actually began.

Calilung testified that the investigation started on November 23, 2024, the same day as the Vice President's press briefing.

Narvasa clarified whether the investigation began after the press conference had already taken place.

The witness agreed that it started later that same day.

Narvasa remarked that it would be impossible to investigate an event before it had occurred, drawing agreement from the witness.

Questions on Personal Knowledge

The defense next questioned whether Calilung possessed firsthand knowledge of the events.

During cross-examination, the NBI agent acknowledged that:

• He was not physically present during the press briefing.

• He did not watch the livestream in real time.

• He became familiar with its contents only after beginning the investigation.

• He had no personal knowledge regarding the alleged assassin or "hitman" mentioned in the case.

Calilung explained that his role centered on preserving and authenticating digital evidence gathered during the investigation.

Digital Evidence Presented

The witness also described how investigators preserved the video of the November 23 press briefing.

According to Calilung, the NBI used Open Broadcast Software (OBS) to record and preserve the publicly available livestream as part of its open-source digital investigation.

Following this testimony, the defense requested that the prosecution unseal and present the USB drive previously marked as Exhibit P-4-10 so the witness could identify the recording.

The impeachment court proceeded with the presentation of the digital evidence as part of the continuing cross-examination.

Trial Continues

The exchange formed part of the defense's effort to challenge the reliability, independence, and procedural foundation of the prosecution's evidence.

For its part, the prosecution maintained that the investigation followed established legal procedures and that questions regarding the admissibility and weight of the evidence would ultimately be decided by the Senate impeachment court.

As of the latest proceedings, the impeachment trial remains ongoing, with no findings or conclusions yet issued regarding the merits of the allegations against the Vice President.

Reportorial Commentary

The cross-examination illustrated two distinct legal strategies.

The prosecution has focused on presenting documentary and digital evidence to support the allegations contained in the Articles of Impeachment. Meanwhile, the defense has devoted significant attention to examining how that evidence was gathered, preserved, and introduced, while also questioning the institutional relationships between the NBI, the DOJ, and the Executive Branch.

These issues do not, by themselves, determine whether the allegations are true or false. Instead, they relate to the credibility, reliability, and procedural integrity of the evidence—matters that the Senate impeachment court will evaluate alongside the testimony of witnesses and the legal arguments of both parties before reaching any final decision.

📖 Exegesis Bible Verse

"The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him." — Proverbs 18:17 (ESV)

Context

Proverbs 18:17 teaches the importance of hearing both sides before reaching a conclusion. An initial claim may appear convincing, but careful questioning and examination often reveal additional facts that are essential for a fair judgment.

In legal proceedings such as an impeachment trial, this principle underscores why cross-examination is a vital part of due process. The prosecution presents its evidence, while the defense is given the opportunity to test the credibility of witnesses, clarify facts, and challenge procedures. The final judgment should rest not on first impressions, but on a thorough and impartial evaluation of all the evidence presented.

VP Sara Duterte: Madriga Aims to Block My Possible Presidential Bid

Vice President Sara Duterte has pushed back strongly against allegations raised by her former aide Ramil Madriga, saying the accusations are designed to undermine her potential candidacy for the presidency rather than uncover truth.

Speaking to reporters, Duterte categorically denied any personal or operational ties to Madriga, reiterating that she never gave him instructions, never visited him in detention, and never discussed any transactions with him. She described the allegations as baseless claims unsupported by evidence.

According to the Vice President, Madriga has presented no documents, no corroboration, and no proof, relying instead on repetition and public spectacle. “Bare allegations, no matter how loudly repeated, amount to nothing more than noise,” Duterte said.

Duterte further questioned Madriga’s motives, noting that he is facing serious criminal charges, including kidnapping, and may be acting out of desperation to secure release from detention. She also dismissed photos circulated online, explaining that these were taken during public events and do not establish any personal relationship or command structure.

The Vice President stressed that the timing of the accusations—surfacing amid speculation about her political future—raises legitimate concerns. “He is now disseminating false statements as part of a concerted effort to obstruct and undermine my possible candidacy for president,” she said.

Supporters see the issue as a familiar pattern in Philippine politics: accusations surfacing before evidence, narratives formed before verification, and restraint framed as guilt. Critics argue accountability must still be pursued, but even they acknowledge that allegations must survive scrutiny in proper forums.

🦅 Agila note:
When ambition is threatened, noise becomes a weapon. But elections are won by the people—not by affidavits without proof.

Bible Verse:
“The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.” — Proverbs 18:17

VP Sara Duterte Issues Official Statement Rejecting ‘False Accusations’ Linked to Ramil Madriga

Vice President Sara Duterte has issued a firm official statement categorically denying allegations made by Ramil Madriga, describing them as false, unsubstantiated, and politically motivated.

In her statement dated December 22, 2025, the Vice President said she has no personal relationship with Madriga and has never given him instructions of any kind, nor visited or communicated with him at any point. She further clarified that photographs submitted by Madriga were taken during public events and do not support claims of coordination or campaign involvement.

“These images merely show that he was present as part of a larger public gathering,” Duterte said, stressing that they do not establish any form of personal or operational link.

The Vice President also underscored that Madriga has offered no documentary evidence, no corroboration, and no independent proof—only accusations. She warned against equating repetition with truth, stating that bare allegations, no matter how loudly repeated, amount to nothing more than noise.

Duterte further noted that Madriga is currently facing serious criminal charges and has a prior criminal record, suggesting that his statements may be driven by desperation to secure release from detention. She described the accusations as part of a broader effort to undermine her possible candidacy for the presidency.

The statement serves as a direct rebuttal amid rising political tension, reinforcing Duterte’s position that truth is established by evidence, not by narratives amplified for convenience.

🦅 Agila note:
When accusations are loud but proof is silent, clarity becomes an act of leadership.

Bible Verse:
“For lack of guidance a nation falls, but victory is won through many advisers.” — Proverbs 11:14