IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF VP SARA DUTERTE (DAY 22)

Summary of Impeachment Trial (Day 22): VP Sara Duterte — Key Proceedings & Issues

Court opening and quorum

• The impeachment court was called to order, followed by a prayer led by Senator Judge Alan Peter Cayetano (2 Chronicles 7:14).
• The clerk called the roll, and the chair declared a quorum with multiple “Senator Judges” present.
• The court dispensed with reading the Senate journal and formally called the impeachment case.

Stipulations and disputes over disputed wording (confidential funds: “turned over” vs “dispersed”)

• Parties discussed proposed stipulations involving documents and accounting for confidential funds, including items tied to:
  • Department of Education confidential funds
  • Cash advances, vouchers, certificates
  • Liquidation/accomplishment reports
  • Other common exhibits
• A key dispute centered on terminology:
  • Prosecution position: funds were “turned over.”
  • Defense position: the respondent said the funds were “dispersed” (or were given/handed in a manner the defense characterizes as dispersal).
• The court sought a neutral formulation stating that the security recipient received the funds, while noting the record dispute on “turned over” versus “dispersed.”
• Another disagreement concerned whether the record contained documentary proof of payment/receipt by Colonel Dennis Nolasco; the prosecution resisted stipulating beyond what is supported by evidence.

Motion to dispense with a witness due to health condition

• Prosecution and defense initially discussed stipulations tied to the medical condition of SDO Edward Farda (a witness for the respondent).
• Later, the prosecution sought to dispense with Farda’s testimony based on humanitarian grounds and a medical update indicating he needed additional time to recover after a stroke.
• The court ordered the recall of the subpoena for Edward Farda, and the trial continued with other witnesses.

---

Presentation of witness: PSA official Marisa B. Grande (civil registry verification)

What the witness testified to (core claims)

• Marisa Grande, an Assistant National Statistician / PSA civil registration official, testified regarding PSA’s Civil Registry System (CRS) database verification of individuals listed on OVP/DepEd confidential funds recipient/acknowledgement receipt lists.
• The prosecution’s stated purpose for her testimony included claims that PSA verified alleged payees for 2022–2023, producing results such as:
  • Some names had no birth/marriage/death records in the CRS database.
  • Some names had only single-match entries.
  • Some matches involved death records and/or children, as reflected by CRS results.
• The prosecution emphasized that the confidential funds were allegedly liquidated using lists whose corresponding civil registry records did not exist or were inconsistent—based on PSA verification.

Defense objections and evidentiary disputes

• The defense argued that parts of the prosecution’s “offer of testimony” contained improper legal conclusions or were not properly limited, and also questioned the competency/appropriateness of parts of the offer.
• The defense challenged the basis and limitations of PSA’s verification:
  • PSA verification is limited to whether names appear in CRS based on the provided lists and matching methods.
  • PSA did not conduct broad field investigations to physically confirm unregistered births/marriages/deaths beyond its official processes.
  • Negative findings are based on CRS database searches, and the witness repeatedly stated she could not opine whether people exist beyond database availability.

Major cross-examination themes

1. Database limitations

   • PSA CRS relies on submissions from local civil registry offices and other sources.
   • PSA does not necessarily conduct field checks for CRS completeness for each category.
   • Negative results mean “not found in database,” not definitive “non-existence.”

2. Accuracy limits and clerical/name-match issues

   • The defense highlighted potential errors, mismatches, and the matching behavior of the system.
   • The witness confirmed that she could not guarantee 100% accurate negative results in an absolute sense, due to verification limitations and database/search constraints.

3. Aliases / operational identities

   • The defense pressed whether the names were aliases or operational identities used in intelligence/confidential operations.
   • The witness testified PSA stores civil registry entries and judicially approved annotated identities/aliases.
   • However, she stated she did not know whether names on confidential funds receipts correspond to operational code names.

4. Time-bounded negative certifications

   • The defense discussed PSA policies: negative birth-related certifications may have validity limits (referenced as six months in relation to delayed registration).
   • The parties contested how (and whether) that policy affects negative results used in the hearings and certifications.

Senator judge interventions (contextual/statistical points)

• Several senator judges asked:
  • What proportion of “non-existent/non-verified” results is statistically “usual” versus “unusual.”
  • How PSA verifies identity when aliases are claimed.
• Senator Judge Villanueva and others asked what information PSA would need to verify that an alias corresponds to a real person beyond CRS availability.
• Other questions included whether names used in confidential/intelligence operations are tracked and whether PSA can confirm existence beyond CRS records.

---

Administrative rulings & scheduling

• The court set/continued the next portion of proceedings:
  • Trial was scheduled to resume the next day with another witness (PNP Major Magi), while court interventions managed remaining time.
• The court issued rulings on subpoena document submissions from banks and financial institutions:
  • extensions granted until Sept. 8, 2026
  • instructions on how copies must be distributed and verified against digital/hard copies
• The court confirmed that the prosecution would advance unexplained wealth before bribery, without waiving bribery evidence—only adjusting the order of presentation.

---

Further record: question about whether certain security officers will still be called

• Senator Judge Irwin Tulfo asked whether the prosecution would stop presenting certain security officers named in the transcript as “Lachica” and “Nolasco.”
• The prosecution responded that it believed elements regarding misuse/misappropriation of confidential funds were already covered by prior witness testimony, so it likely would not present them anymore.
• The defense could still call them if desired, and the court retained authority to call or recall witnesses if necessary.

---

Presenters/Contributors (as mentioned in subtitles)

Senator Judges / Court

• Senator Judge Alan Peter Cayetano (prayer)
• Senator Judge Aino
• Senator Judge Kayano Alan
• Senator Judge Ketanopia
• Senator Judge Dear Rosa
• Center Judge Aersto
• Senator Judge Estrada
• Center Judge Go
• Central Judge Oniveros
• Center Judge Laxon
• Central Judge Lapid
• Central Judge Legarda
• Cetto Judge Marcetta
• Set Judge Marcos
• Set Judge Padilia
• Cet Judge Pangilinan
• Cet Judge Sto III
• Center Judge Tulfo Irwin
• Center Judge Tulfo Rafi
• Center Judge Villan Noeva
• Center Judge Villar Camille
• Center Judge Villar Mark
• Set Judge Zubiri (presiding officer)
• Senator Judge Villanueva
• Senator Judge Irwin Tulfo

Clerk of Court / Court personnel

• Referred to as clerk of court / chair

Prosecution / Prosecution counsel (named)

• Attorney May Deina Gracia (recognized to present next witness)
• Attorney Justin Nicole B. Gular (assisting/defense-related role in some segments; appears as counsel in the proceedings)
• Hon. Luistro (lead prosecutor)
• Attorney Lyndon Miguel Bwell (appears as counsel in stipulations/positions)
• Additional references appeared but were partially garbled in subtitles

Defense / Respondent counsel (named)

• Attorney Ray Robles (stipulations; discussion with court)
• Attorney Sheila (defense counsel at various points)
• Attorney Lyndon Miguel Bwell (defense counsel)
• Attorney Justin Nicole B. Gular (defense counsel role)

Witness

• Marisa B. Grande (PSA civil registry verification expert)

Other individuals mentioned

• Edward Pahara Pararda / Edward Farda (SDO; subpoena recalled due to health)
• Colonel Dennis Nolasco (referenced as recipient/security officer)
• Senator/Representative Joel Chua (requested PSA verification; mentioned during cross-examination)
• Undersecretary Claire Dennis Mapa (PSA signatory referenced)
• PSA/clerical/document-related staff (named roles mentioned, partially garbled)