Sara Duterte impeachment trial resumes as defense presents second witness

Inquirer.net leads with Defense counsel Michael Poa’s remark that it is too early to discuss whether VP Sara Duterte will be called as an impeachment witness.

Inquirer.net uses a live format for Day 41, foregrounding senators’ continuing deliberations and live exchanges while the defense advances.

Interaksyon frames the story as an explainer, summarising the trial’s current status and noting the prosecution’s prior withdrawal of some charges.

Inquirer.net’s ‘watch’ coverage spotlights the expected testimony of the Samal city assessor and specifically links it to property connected to Duterte and her husband.

philstar.com leads with live coverage, focusing on the defense’s next witness and its goal of disputing alleged failures to disclose properties in Duterte’s SALN.

Another Inquirer.net live-updates item highlights the scheduled testimony of the Samal city assessor and points to details about property connected to Carpio and Duterte.

Philstar.com spotlights uncertainty about whether Duterte will testify, framed through a lawyer’s comment that it is too early to tell.

Interaksyon combines the defense opening with political context—mentioning Duterte’s poll standing, the preparation of multiple witnesses, and claims of political harassment—while reiterating the unexplained wealth allegation.

GMA News presents it as a live-updates stream, emphasising that the defense is expected to offer a second witness for Article II.

GMA News previews the day’s evidentiary focus, specifying that the second witness testimony will cover tax declarations and tax maps for a Samal property linked to the dispute.

Free Malaysia Today opens on the defense’s start, stressing the ‘high-stakes’ nature of contesting the unexplained wealth allegations.

Bloomberg leads with a political survival framing, highlighting defense strategy aimed at avoiding a guilty verdict and discussing implications for political prospects.

Inquirer focuses on Michael Poa’s remarks that it is too early to discuss calling Duterte as a witness, placing the comment at the start of evidence-in-chief.

Inquirer leads with procedural transparency, reporting that Presiding Officer Francis Escudero tells the chamber the defense submitted a 24-witness list.

Inquirer’s live coverage foregrounds ongoing Senate deliberations and the pressure for Duterte to testify, while also noting the defense begins amid calls for her appearance.

GMA News highlights Poa’s same stance in a concise headline, focusing readers on the uncertainty over Duterte taking the witness stand.

Philstar.com frames the story as a live update with the emphasis that the defense is about to begin presenting its case.

Inquirer.net leads with the start of the defense while stressing the pressure and calls for Duterte to testify amid unexplained-wealth allegations.

Rappler emphasises the procedural pause for Senate committee hearings on the proposed 2027 budget before the defense presentation resumes.

Inquirer.net frames the resumed trial as live reporting, emphasizing Day 40 and the defense presenting witnesses/evidence in response to allegations and demands for Duterte’s testimony.

Inquirer.net’s watch update focuses on the defense evidence start and adds detail about subpoenas served by the court ahead of the proceedings.

GMA News Online presents a live-update overview focused on the trial’s resumption date and that the defense will present witnesses.

GMA News Online’s explainer-style piece focuses on what to expect, centering the defense’s case-in-chief after the nearly month-long suspension.

Inquirer.net again emphasizes the defense beginning amid public and prosecution pressure for Duterte to testify, tying it directly to unexplained wealth claims.

Inquirer.net uses an opinion-style framing (“Time to show up”) that foregrounds the absence of Duterte herself during the early defense presentation period.

Inquirer.net highlights a prosecution response, focusing on the claim that Duterte’s lawyers did not challenge the authenticity of financial records and instead raised bank secrecy/confidentiality objections.

Inquirer.net emphasizes the prosecution’s view of a likely defense theme—possible lack of knowledge about certain bank accounts and transactions—based on questions during cross-examination.