PASAY CITY—The Senate impeachment trial heated up on July 20 proceedings, as Senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano questioned whether an impeachable offense must fall strictly within a respondent's current term, invoking the landmark Duterte v. House of Representatives case. 

House impeachment prosecutor Chel Diokno countered that offenses extend beyond the active term, dismissing relevant sections of that precedent as non-binding obiter dictum—an opinion uttered in passing. 

Defense counsel Michael Poa swiftly shot back, arguing those portions are binding law and pointing to the Supreme Court decision that triggered the one-year bar on Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment.

As Diokno asserted that the articles of impeachment are properly loaded with both ultimate and evidentiary facts, Cayetano pushed back on consistency, questioning why the Saballa and Cabrera impeachment complaints lacked authentic records when filed. 

The procedural grilling prompted Diokno to openly question the Senate's role, asking if the impeachment court was wrongfully acting "as an appellate or review court on what happened in the HOR [House of Representatives] proceedings."

The debate pivoted to political fairness when Cayetano recalled a past impeachment complaint against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to highlight a double standard regarding transparency. 

"Ang katotohanan ay hindi confidential. So why in the case of President Marcos is the katotohanan confidential, but in the case of Vice President Sara it is not confidential?" Cayetano asked, later adding, "Would it be unfair to require 20 years of documents from AMLC, BIR, and bank accounts from Vice President Sara without requiring the same from President Bongbong considering that all of the scandals is happening during his administration?"

Diokno defended the distinction by stating the Marcos complaint simply failed to allege ultimate facts, noting that "if the complaint against Marcos had ultimate facts, he does not see any reason why it can't proceed."

Tensions peaked when Poa revealed the defense is actively contesting the Anti-Money Laundering Council’s (AMLC) "unlawful disclosure" of Duterte's records during House hearings, prompting Cayetano to accuse the prosecution of an information-gathering dragnet. 

"If you cannot connect AMLC and the bank accounts, that is precisely what the defense and other people are saying. Aren't you fishing between the three? Fishing means hindi mo pa hawak so you're trying to get a fish," Cayetano said. 

Diokno firmly rejected the characterization, telling Cayetano, "If we bring your honor’s logic to it’s conclusion, that would mean the Committee on Justice would have to conduct a full blown trial... when that is not the contemplation of the procedure for impeachment under the Constitution.” 

Poa, later insisted a fishing expedition was evident because prosecutors could not pinpoint exactly when or through what transaction the Vice President supposedly amassed unexplained wealth.

‍