FIVE THINGS TO KNOW…

Short explainers published throughout the day.

9:55 AM8-minute read

ABOUT EL NIÑO AND PREPARING FOR LESS RAIN

It can be raining outside while PAGASA warns about El Niño. That can sound confusing when the immediate problem is a wet road or a flooded field. The two warnings describe different periods: the weather happening now and the rainfall conditions that may develop over the coming months.

Read the explainer →
5:30 AM8-minute read

ABOUT THE NEW ARREST WARRANTS AGAINST ZALDY CO, MARTIN ROMUALDEZ AND TWO OTHERS

The Sandiganbayan has ordered the arrest of Zaldy Co, Martin Romualdez and two other accused in the plunder case filed on September 7. By Monday evening, authorities had served Romualdez's warrant and carried out booking procedures at Cardinal Santos Medical Center in San Juan. His arrest is a confirmed development; it does not establish that his three co-accused are also in custody.

Read the explainer →
3:15 PM8-minute read

ABOUT THE PLUNDER CASE AGAINST MARTIN ROMUALDEZ

The Office of the Ombudsman filed a plunder case against former House Speaker Martin Romualdez at the Sandiganbayan on September 7 over his alleged involvement in flood-control kickbacks. The accusations have now reached the court that will handle the criminal case. Romualdez denies wrongdoing and remains presumed innocent.

Read the explainer →
1:18 PM7-minute read

ABOUT THE NEW SWS POVERTY NUMBERS

Self-rated poverty and food poverty declined in June, but the figures also show how many Filipino families remain under pressure and why lower household budgets do not necessarily mean life became cheaper.

Read the explainer →
2:02 PM11-minute read

ABOUT THE CHILDREN'S SOCIAL MEDIA SAFETY ACT

House Bill No. 9965 would bar children below 13 from having social media accounts, require parental consent for users aged 13 to 17, regulate platform algorithms, and impose fines reaching P50 million. It is still being deliberated in the House.

Read the explainer →
12:02 PM7-minute read

ABOUT THE SEALED BIR BOX

Marcos authorized the BIR to comply with the Senate subpoena. That did not open the records to the public or prove the unexplained-wealth allegation.

Read the explainer →

MCT READER PULSE · MCT-PULSE-2026-007

MCT READER SURVEY

House prosecutors are considering whether to stop presenting evidence on the bribery article against Vice President Sara Duterte and move directly to the unexplained-wealth charge. Do you agree with that strategy?Pinag-iisipan ng mga prosekutor ng Kamara kung ititigil ang paghaharap ng ebidensiya sa artikulo tungkol sa panunuhol at tututok sa kasong hindi maipaliwanag na yaman laban kay Bise Presidente Sara Duterte. Sang-ayon ka ba sa estratehiyang ito?

Some prosecutors want to move directly to the unexplained-wealth charge; others want to proceed with all four articles. No final decision had been announced when this survey opened. The question is about prosecution strategy, not guilt.

Background: The Philippine Star and Daily Tribune.

This is an informal survey of verified MCT readers who choose to participate. It is not nationally representative.

Open the shareable survey page →
View previous survey results →
Checking your reader session…

MCT DAILY BRIEF

No fake news. No noise. Just the facts you need.

Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo speaking during the September 8, 2026 impeachment hearing.
Senate of the Philippines / ABS-CBN News ABS-CBN News

Good morning. The prosecution changed course at Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial today, dropping its remaining confidential-fund witnesses and saying it wants the Vice President herself to testify later. Lawyers also turned to bank records, with the defense given 15 days to answer requests about their authenticity and ownership. Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo pressed for clarity on the votes needed to decide the case, particularly when some members are absent. This update covers developments reported as of 11:33 a.m., while the hearing was still ongoing.

1

PROSECUTION DROPS ITS REMAINING 15 CONFIDENTIAL-FUND WITNESSES

Prosecutors will no longer present the remaining 15 witnesses they had lined up for Article I, which concerns alleged misuse of confidential funds at the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education. Private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan announced the decision at the opening of today’s hearing.

The original list contained 27 witnesses. Ten had testified, while the parties had agreed on the testimony of two others. Kapunan said the prosecution considered its existing testimony and approximately 4,750 documents sufficient to support its case. Scheduled appearances by additional witnesses would therefore no longer proceed under that plan.

For people following where public money went, the decision puts greater weight on the evidence already presented. The number of documents alone does not establish what happened to the funds, and the prosecution’s confidence does not amount to a court finding. Senator-judges still have to assess what the records and testimony establish about Duterte’s responsibility.

WHAT TO WATCH

Watch how prosecutors connect the existing confidential-fund evidence to their allegations against Duterte as they move into the remaining articles. The questions are what each record establishes, whose actions it documents and how the defense answers it.

2

PROSECUTORS WANT DUTERTE TO TESTIFY; DEFENSE RAISES CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION

Kapunan said prosecutors intend to call Duterte herself after presenting their evidence on all four impeachment articles. She argued that the Vice President’s testimony would be relevant across the case. Asked by presiding officer Francis Escudero whether the prosecution was requesting a subpoena immediately, Kapunan said it was not.

Lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro later called the discussion premature because no formal motion had been filed. She nevertheless argued that the court and the public should hear Duterte answer the allegations.

Defense lead counsel Sheila Sison objected to the prospect of compelled testimony, invoking the constitutional protection against self-incrimination. She maintained that the protection applies even though impeachment is different from a criminal trial. The defense reserved its right to respond in writing to any formal request.

Whether Duterte takes the witness stand cannot be settled by either side’s announcement. A request, the defense’s response and the court’s handling of the issue would determine the next steps. Duterte and her lawyers deny the allegations against her.

WHAT TO WATCH

The next concrete step is whether prosecutors file a formal motion to summon Duterte. Its wording and the court’s eventual response would clarify what appearance or testimony is being sought and how her constitutional objection would be addressed.

3

DEFENSE GETS 15 DAYS TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT BANK RECORDS

House prosecutor Chel Diokno said the prosecution served the defense with 104 written requests for admission concerning bank records submitted in response to the impeachment court’s subpoenas. The requests ask whether the documents are genuine and whether the identified accounts belong to Duterte, either individually or jointly with others.

A request for admission asks the other side to acknowledge or dispute a particular fact. Diokno said the defense should admit what is true, deny what is untrue, or explain under oath why it cannot honestly do either. Confirming ownership of an account would not, by itself, establish that its money came from an unlawful source.

Prosecutors proposed a seven-day response period. The defense asked for 15 days, which Escudero granted. He clarified that the trial could continue with direct examination of prosecution witnesses on Article II, concerning alleged unexplained wealth, while the response was being prepared. Defense cross-examination could follow after those witnesses had been presented.

WHAT TO WATCH

Watch which records and accounts the defense acknowledges or disputes in its response. Those answers would clarify what remains contested when senator-judges examine the prosecution’s unexplained-wealth allegations.

4

ERWIN TULFO SEEKS CLARITY ON VOTING AND ABSENT SENATOR-JUDGES

Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo asked the impeachment court to address its voting threshold and the treatment of members who are not attending the proceedings. He questioned whether their votes would be accepted despite their absence and urged the Senate to discuss the issue promptly.

Tulfo also raised situations in which senator-judges become ill, resign or run for higher office. His manifestation asked the chamber to explain how those circumstances would affect the vote needed to decide Duterte’s case.

The issue concerns the rules under which the evidence will eventually be judged. Attendance at a hearing, participation in the final vote and the number of votes required for conviction are separate questions. Tulfo’s request for clarification does not itself change the threshold or disqualify an absent member from voting.

For the public following the trial, an explicit ruling would explain how the court intends to count the deciding votes and address the situations Tulfo raised.

WHAT TO WATCH

Watch for a formal court ruling or Senate action responding to Tulfo’s questions. Its exact terms would show whether the existing voting requirement remains unchanged and how the court addresses absent members.

5

SENATE SETS WHOLE-DAY OCTOBER HEARINGS BEFORE BUDGET BREAK

Escudero announced a revised schedule balancing the impeachment trial with the Senate’s budget deliberations. The reported September sitting hours are 10 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., with whole-day trial sessions scheduled for October 1 and 2, October 5 to 9, and October 12 to 15.

The calendar then provides for no impeachment trial from October 16 through November 8 to accommodate budget work. Those dates describe a scheduled break, not the dismissal of the case or a decision on Duterte’s guilt.

The schedule gives the public specific dates to follow as the prosecution moves into its remaining allegations. It also shows when senators will shift their attention to the national budget, which determines funding for government services. Whole-day sittings provide more hearing time on the listed dates, but they do not establish when the trial will end.

WHAT TO WATCH

Watch which witnesses and articles are actually heard before the October 16 break. The court’s subsequent scheduling announcements will show how much testimony remains and when the defense will have its opportunity to answer it.

BOTTOM LINE

Today’s hearing changed what comes next: fewer confidential-fund witnesses, a possible request for Duterte’s testimony and a deadline for answers about bank records. None of those steps establishes guilt on its own. The public should be able to follow how the evidence connects to the allegations, what the defense disputes and what the court actually decides. Tulfo’s questions add another responsibility for the Senate: explaining the voting rules clearly before the verdict. The next substantive developments will come from the defense’s written answers, further testimony and formal court rulings.

GOOGLE PREFERRED SOURCES

FOLLOW MCT ON GOOGLE

Google’s Preferred Sources feature lets you choose publications you want Google to prioritize for you. Select “Add to Preferred Sources” to make MCT easier to find in Top Stories and other eligible Google results. This does not subscribe you to email.

← Back to MCT home

LATEST COMMENTARY

View all commentary →

SUPPORT MCT

HELP KEEP INDEPENDENT POLITICAL WRITING GOING.

Morning Coffee Thoughts is reader-supported. Contributions help pay for research tools, hosting, and the work required to verify and explain each development.

Choose the monthly support amount you are comfortable with.Continue through PayPal
Send support through GCash or Maya0969 314 4839