Senator Pia Cayetano appeared to take a swipe at House prosecutor and Akbayan Party-list Rep. Chel Diokno in a Facebook video wherein she criticized the latter's responses during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.

The video, which was uploaded directly to Pia Cayetano's official Facebook page rather than shared from another account on Friday, July 24, carried the captions "Nagbabakasakali lang" (Just trying his luck) and "Walang mga ebidensiya pero nag-aakusa na" (They're making accusations without any evidence).

It featured edited clips of Diokno's exchange with Senator Alan Peter Cayetano.

In the impeachment trial, all senators including the Cayetano siblings are acting as senator-judges. 

A "laughing" sound effect was even added to the end of the video. However, it cut short Diokno's response.

Presiding officer Senator Francis "Chiz" Escudero has yet to reply on the matter.

During the trial, a lengthy exchange unfolded between Alan Cayetano and Diokno over the prosecution's bid to subpoena Duterte's financial records, with the debate centering on whether the request amounted to a "fishing expedition".

Cayetano argued that prosecutors should already have sufficient evidence before seeking access to Duterte's bank, Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), and Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA)-related records covering nearly two decades.

He repeatedly pressed Diokno on whether the prosecution had proof of unexplained wealth or was merely searching through financial documents in hopes of uncovering incriminating evidence.

The senator also questioned why prosecutors were asking the Senate to compel the production of records they had yet to obtain, emphasizing the distinction between "ultimate facts" and "evidentiary facts".

He further raised what he described as an inconsistency in the House's approach, noting that lawmakers did not pursue President Marcos' bank records when an impeachment complaint was previously filed against him.

The exchange quickly gained traction online, with many social media users commending Diokno for maintaining his composure throughout the questioning by both Alan Peter and Pia Cayetano. All three are lawyers.

Clips of the proceedings circulated widely, earning the House prosecutor the nickname "Chill Diokno" for his calm responses despite persistent questioning.

Responding to the accusations, Diokno rejected the characterization of the subpoena request as a "fishing expedition." He said such an expedition occurs only when investigators seek records on the mere "off chance" of discovering evidence.

According to the rookie cong7, the prosecution's request was narrowly tailored and supported by findings from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), which allegedly identified P6.7 billion in financial transactions that appeared inconsistent with Duterte's declared net worth. He maintained that the prosecution was only seeking documents necessary to establish the complete "evidentiary facts."

Diokno also defended the House's decision to transmit the impeachment complaint without first presenting all supporting evidence, saying the Constitution envisions the Senate—not the House—as the body that conducts the actual trial. Requiring the House to complete the entire evidentiary process beforehand, he argued, would undermine that constitutional framework.

Addressing Cayetano's comparison with the impeachment complaint against President Marcos, Diokno said the two cases were fundamentally different.

He explained that the complaint against Marcos had been dismissed at the House level because it failed to allege the required "ultimate facts" needed to establish an impeachable offense. He added that the Senate impeachment court is not tasked with reviewing how the House disposed of previous impeachment complaints.

Pia Cayetano brought up 1967 Supreme Court ruling in Stonehill v. Diokno, and asked whether the prosecution's request for Duterte's decades-old financial and tax records resembled the broad "general warrants" struck down in that landmark case.

The decision involved then-Justice Secretary Jose W. "Ka Pepe" Diokno, the father of House prosecutor Chel Diokno.

In response, Chel distinguished the two situations, explaining that Stonehill v. Diokno dealt with search warrants that authorize law enforcement to enter premises and seize property, making them inherently more intrusive.

By contrast, he said the prosecution was asking the court to issue a subpoena duces tecum, which simply directs a person or institution to produce specific, relevant, and identifiable documents for use in the proceedings.