MANILA, Philippines — November 12, 2026 — Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense team is making a significant change to its witness lineup as her impeachment trial enters another critical stage: instead of presenting all 16 bank representatives originally included in its list, the defense will call only one — a senior official from the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI).
The decision could streamline the proceedings, but it also places greater attention on the documents and explanations expected from the remaining bank witness.
Lawyer Michael Poa, a member of Duterte’s defense team, announced the change during Wednesday’s hearing, saying the defense would dispense with the testimonies of the other bank representatives in the interest of time and to shorten the trial.
The remaining bank witness is Atty. Paul Roderick Ysmael, BPI senior vice president.
His expected testimony concerns bank correspondence and related records connected to requests made in 2026 by Duterte and/or her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, through their legal counsel.
The November 12 proceedings mark the 43rd day of the Senate impeachment trial and continue the defense’s presentation of evidence under Article II, the remaining impeachment charge involving allegations of unexplained wealth and inaccurate financial disclosures.
The central question is now whether the defense can use the available bank documents and its remaining witnesses to address the financial issues raised by prosecutors.
Why Did Sara Duterte’s Defense Drop 15 Bank Witnesses?
The original defense witness lineup included representatives from several major financial institutions.
These included officials connected to BDO Unibank, BPI, EastWest Bank, Land Bank of the Philippines, Metrobank, PSBank, Security Bank and UnionBank.
However, Poa told the impeachment court that the defense would no longer present the testimonies of the other bank representatives.
He explained that the decision was made to avoid consuming unnecessary court time and to abbreviate the proceedings.
The change does not mean that the defense has abandoned every issue involving banking records. Instead, the team is retaining one BPI representative while dispensing with the other proposed bank testimonies.
The decision is particularly notable because the bank officials were initially included in a broader defense presentation intended to address allegations involving Duterte’s financial records and declared assets.
The original witness list was reported by Philstar on November 5, when the defense sought to have 25 individuals called for the November 9–13 hearings.
Who Is the Remaining BPI Witness?
The sole bank representative retained by the defense is Atty. Paul Roderick Ysmael, senior vice president of the Bank of the Philippine Islands.
According to the impeachment court’s witness briefing, Ysmael is expected to identify certified true copies of letters requested in 2026 by Duterte and/or Carpio through their legal representatives.
He is also expected to discuss BPI’s responses to those requests and identify other relevant documents.
This is an important distinction: the stated purpose of his appearance is to identify bank correspondence and related records. It does not automatically establish that the bank has confirmed the defense’s position or disproved the prosecution’s allegations.
The contents of the documents, the questions raised during testimony and the court’s assessment will determine their significance.
For readers following the case, the key issue is not simply which bank official appears. It is what the records actually show and how they relate to the financial allegations.
What Is Article II of Sara Duterte’s Impeachment Case About?
The impeachment trial is currently focused on Article II, the remaining charge after the House prosecution withdrew three other impeachment articles.
The remaining allegations concern unexplained wealth, the accuracy of Duterte’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs), and alleged failure to divest from business interests as required by the Constitution.
The prosecution has presented financial, tax, corporate and property records to support its case.
A forensic analyst previously estimated that Duterte had approximately ₱817.87 million in unexplained assets and wealth between 2022 and 2025.
Duterte’s defense disputes the allegations and has challenged the prosecution’s interpretation of the financial evidence.
The Senate impeachment court admitted substantial portions of the prosecution’s documentary evidence, including bank, tax, corporate and property records. However, the court clarified that admitting documents into the record does not automatically establish that the allegations or financial computations are true.
The senator-judges must still determine the weight of the evidence and whether it proves the remaining impeachment charge.
GenCorp’s ₱2.14-Million Payments Remain Part of the Financial Questions
The latest witness lineup change comes after a closely watched November 11 hearing involving GenCorp Industries Inc. and payments received by Duterte.
Lawyer Suzette Balucanag-Punay, corporate counsel of GenCorp and Metro City Chow Foods Corp., testified that Duterte received ₱2,142,369.14 from GenCorp between 2022 and 2025.
Punay described the payments as a return of capital connected to an earlier investment involving a Jollibee branch in Davao City.
However, she acknowledged that she had not seen written documentation establishing the exact original investment amount.
Senators questioned how the payments were calculated and whether they should be characterized as a return of capital or income generated through the business arrangement.
The issue also drew attention to GenCorp’s government contracts with Davao City.
Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian raised concerns about the apparent conflict-of-interest implications, noting the company’s payments to Duterte and its reported business dealings with the local government led by her brother, Mayor Sebastian Duterte.
These matters remain allegations and questions raised during the proceedings, not final findings of wrongdoing.
Read WWC One Media’s related report: Sara Duterte Received ₱2.14 Million From Jollibee Operator Despite Owning No Company Shares — But Where Are the Original Investment Records?
Defense Says Future Witnesses Will Address Questions About SALN and Corporate Records
The decision to retain only one bank representative does not mean the defense has finished presenting witnesses.
Poa previously said that other witnesses would address questions raised by senator-judges, including discrepancies between Duterte’s SALN declarations and corporate records.
GMA News reported that the defense planned to present three additional individuals after the BPI representative:
- Atty. Anel Martin S. Antero of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan
- Chadrin S. Parian of Las Piñas City
- Quezon City Prosecutor Vimar Barcellano
These witnesses were included in the defense’s lineup for the remaining Article II allegations.
Their expected appearances are relevant because senator-judges have questioned how certain financial interests were declared and how those declarations compare with documents filed with government agencies.
The defense has said that future witnesses could help address these questions.
Why the Impeachment Trial Is Now Focused on One Charge
The proceedings have narrowed considerably since the original impeachment complaint.
The House prosecution initially pursued four impeachment articles involving alleged unexplained wealth, misuse of confidential funds, bribery and threats.
However, prosecutors withdrew three articles in October, leaving the unexplained-wealth charge as the focus of the ongoing trial.
The move was intended to streamline the proceedings and concentrate on what prosecutors described as their strongest case.
Reuters reported that the prosecution is relying heavily on documentary evidence, including SALNs, tax records, property documents, corporate filings and financial reports.
Duterte has denied wrongdoing and described the impeachment proceedings as political harassment.
The remaining charge is consequential because a conviction could remove her from office and disqualify her from holding public office, potentially affecting her widely discussed 2028 presidential ambitions.
What Happens Next in the Senate Impeachment Court?
The Senate impeachment court is continuing the defense presentation, with the November 12 hearing scheduled as Day 43 of the proceedings.
The immediate focus is the testimony of the BPI representative and the documents he is expected to identify.
The defense is also expected to proceed with other witnesses who may address the remaining allegations.
Further hearings are scheduled for November 13, with additional proceedings set for November 19, 20 and 23, according to the published hearing schedule.
The court will ultimately evaluate the evidence presented by both sides before deciding whether the remaining impeachment charge has been established.
For now, the defense’s decision to reduce its bank-witness lineup raises a significant question: will the testimony of one BPI executive and the documents he brings be enough to address the financial issues that have become central to the impeachment trial?
