A reader’s guide to what happened in court, what the documents show, what the two sides dispute and what the senator-judges have decided.
WHERE THE CASE STANDS
Only Article II remains. The defense is presenting its witnesses.
The court allowed the prosecution to withdraw Articles I, III and IV. It did not decide whether those accusations were true. Article II now asks whether Sara Duterte had wealth or business interests that she failed to declare properly.
The court has not decided Article II. On November 5, it allowed some prosecution documents to be used and rejected others that did not relate to Article II. The first three defense hearing days addressed property records, a city payment and two companies. On November 11, Punay said Duterte held no GenCorp shares but had a financial interest in the Jollibee venture and profited from ₱2.14 million in payments. On live Trial Day 43, the defense dropped its remaining BPI witness after saying the authentication point was already on record. Anel Antero then testified about sharing the cost of a Ginza meal paid on Manases Carpio's credit card. The prosecution tested his relationship with Carpio and a reported remittance; Antero said he did not recall the remittance. The hearing was still underway at the cutoff. Journals 37–39 confirm Trial Days 38–41. Trial Day 42 and the live Day 43 note remain provisional because the November 11 and 12 journals are unavailable.
The Supreme Court’s decision on the earlier 2025 complaint did not decide whether the accusations were true or false. A new impeachment case reached the Senate in May 2026, and the trial hearings began on July 6.
The prosecution has presented witnesses and records on alleged threats, confidential funds and unexplained wealth. The defense has challenged the House process, the relevance of older records and the conclusions being drawn from the evidence.
No article of impeachment has been finally decided.
The Impeachment Court
The senator-judges
The full Senate roster belongs with the current trial. Participation can still vary by hearing or vote, so temporary limits are dated instead of being treated as permanent disqualifications.
The oath they took
“I solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Sara Zimmerman Duterte, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws of the Philippines. So help me God.”
Prescribed by the Senate Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials; administered when the court convened on May 18, 2026. The prescribed form also permits an affirmation. Open Journal No. 1
Loading the senator-judges…
What the trial is about
The four charges, in plain language
The House filed four accusations. Three have been withdrawn without a merits verdict; Article II is the only charge still before the court.
Alleged misuse and irregular liquidation of ₱500 million in OVP funds and ₱112.5 million in DepEd funds.
Withdrawn with prejudice: the court said it may not be revived against Duterte during the same term. No merits verdict was entered.Article II
Wealth and disclosures
The prosecution says Duterte had wealth or business interests that she did not declare properly. She denies wrongdoing.
Only remaining charge: the court allowed some prosecution documents on November 5. It has not decided what those documents prove or whether Duterte is guilty.Article III
Payments inside DepEd
Alleged cash gifts or payments to officials intended to influence procurement or bypass government rules.
Withdrawn without prejudice: the prosecution presented no Article III evidence, and the court entered no merits verdict.Article IV
Threats and incitement
Alleged assassination arrangements, grave threats and statements said to amount to inciting sedition.
Withdrawn with prejudice: the court said it may not be revived against Duterte during the same term. No merits verdict was entered.
What the record shows so far
Claim, response and court action are not the same thing
Government record keepers identified SALNs and tax, bank, company, property, insurance, investment and firearm records. A prosecution analyst used some of these records to calculate an alleged ₱817.87 million. The court has allowed many of the documents, with limits on older and confidential records.
What this proves so far: only that the judges may examine the accepted documents. The court has not adopted the analyst’s calculation or decided who owned the assets.
What the defense disputes
The defense says some records do not relate to the charge, were not properly verified or do not support the prosecution’s conclusions. Its corporate witness said Duterte held no GenCorp shares or dividends, while confirming a separate financial interest and profit from the venture.
Still disputed: what the GenCorp payments represented, the missing investment basis, any prohibited participation or contract conflict, ownership, intent and whether the accepted documents prove Article II.
What the court has decided
The court allowed some Article II documents, rejected others it found unrelated, and limited how older or confidential records may be used. It also said it would subpoena documents supporting the GenCorp payment.
Not yet decided: whether the payment or business interests were lawful, how much weight the records deserve, whether the prosecution’s calculations are correct and whether Duterte is guilty under Article II.
From the Impeachment Court
Rulings, orders and announcements
Major formal actions that changed the trial's rules, evidence, witnesses or calendar. The daily notes retain the complete hearing-by-hearing procedural record.
Comments, questions and arguments by individual senator-judges are not rulings unless the court adopts them.
Around the trial
Update available
Developments outside the hearing room
News, investigations and public statements that affect how the case is understood. Each item says whether it is an allegation, an investigation, a party response or an actual court action.
Loading current developments…
Recent hearing notes
What changed in the latest days
These are the developments that altered the record or narrowed the questions before the court.
BPI WITNESS DROPPED; ANTERO TESTIFIES ON GINZA MEAL
The defense did not call Paul Roderick Ysmael. Anel Antero said he reimbursed Manases Carpio ¥40,000 for his share of a Ginza meal. Cross-examination was still underway at 1:00 p.m.; no merits ruling was reported.
Punay said Duterte had a financial interest in the GenCorp-related venture and profited from ₱2.14 million in payments, but could not produce the original investment record. The court announced a subpoena for supporting records and made no merits ruling.
SAMAL RECORDS CONFLICT; THE DEFENSE EXPLAINS A CITY PAYMENT
Enumerables could not confirm that the titled Samal property matched Duterte’s SALN entry, while Bajan said a ₱64,194.72 payment was a delayed salary adjustment. Journal No. 39 records the documents shown, the competing sub judice requests and the withdrawal of Cindy Colina's subpoena. The court made no merits, sanctions or contempt ruling.
Adalin said the Matina Crossing property was the same asset listed in Duterte’s SALN. Prosecutors questioned the records, values and his travel answers. Journal No. 38 confirms that the court did not decide the property dispute.
The defense tests Cabrera's sources and conclusions
Journal No. 37 records the defense cross-examination, the senator-judges' questions and Cabrera's discharge after the parties completed his examination.
The senator-judges abandoned the automatically fixed requirement of 16 votes and adopted a capacity-based denominator for this trial.
Senate Journal No. 29Trial Day 21 · low blow
An insult aimed at the witness is struck
“Abogadong walang alam.”
The court removed the remark from the record, but it captured how quickly heated argument had slipped into a personal attack.
Senate Journal No. 22 · GMA News reportTrial Day 30 · ridicule and skepticism
A “big firework” becomes a “kwitis”
A “big firework” had become a “kwitis.”
Senators questioned why a firearms presentation worth about ₱7.2 million materially advanced an unexplained-wealth charge.
Senate Journal No. 30 · Philstar report
There is no fixed number of moments per day. We include every distinct exchange, argument, admission or incident that materially helps explain the hearing, and leave out routine repetition. Media reports help locate notable exchanges; the official journal is used to check the proceeding. Events outside the chamber are labeled clearly.
How the Case Reached the Senate
The complaints, committee tests, hearings and votes that produced the Articles now before the Impeachment Court.
The House decided whether the case should be tried. It did not decide guilt.
Loading the official House chronology…
The four complaints
Who filed them, who endorsed them and what happened to each one.
Loading the complaints…
The route from filing to trial
Every step below says what changed and what the step did not decide.
Loading the House record…
Who handled the House case
The Justice Committee that built the House record and the prosecutors now presenting the Articles.
Loading the House participants…
Daily Hearing Notes
Choose a hearing to read the full minutes-style account of the testimony, arguments, rulings and unanswered questions.
Loading the hearing list…
Case documents
All 108 files listed in the official Senate archive are indexed here: 101 PDFs and 7 video exhibits. Every written file includes a short overview and the main points to look for.
Written-document notes are ready.The overview tells you what the file is. Open “Main points” for the important contents and the caution that keeps a party claim separate from a court decision. The seven videos are indexed but still await footage review.
Loading all 108 documents…
From the Supreme Court
The petitions, rulings and still-unresolved requests that can change how the impeachment trial proceeds.
A filing is not yet a decision.
We separate what a petitioner asked for from what the Court actually ordered. A procedural dismissal also does not necessarily answer the constitutional question raised in the petition.
Loading Supreme Court matters…
Cases involving Sara Duterte
A separate watchlist for criminal complaints, Ombudsman matters, audit proceedings and lawyer-discipline complaints outside the impeachment court.
This is a progression tracker, not a guilt list.
Each entry says whether something is only a complaint, already in court, under appeal or finally decided. We do not turn allegations into findings.
Criminal, Ombudsman and audit matters
These proceedings follow different rules. An Ombudsman complaint is not yet a Sandiganbayan case, and a COA appeal is not a criminal prosecution.
Loading case progressions…
Disbarment complaints
These concern Duterte's status as a lawyer. They are separate from impeachment and from any criminal liability.
Why public updates may be limited: lawyer-discipline proceedings can be confidential. “No public disposition located” does not mean the Court dismissed a complaint or did nothing.
Loading lawyer-discipline matters…
MCT Commentaries
Commentaries, hearing notes and opinion pieces that help explain the Sara Duterte impeachment case.
Loading the MCT commentary collection…
Loading commentaries…
What each side says
Choose an issue to see the accusation, the answer, the record so far, what remains unsettled and what the Impeachment Court has actually decided.
Follow the case by issue, not by hearing date.
This page gathers arguments spread across many hearing days so readers can compare the two sides without rebuilding the case themselves.
Questions and comments from senator-judges can clarify an issue, but they are not court rulings unless the Impeachment Court formally adopts them.
Loading the dispute map…
About this tracker
How MCT separates accusations, testimony, submitted records, admitted evidence, court rulings and our own explanations.
Someone’s claimWhat a witness saidDocument shown in courtMeaning is disputedCourt decisionStill unansweredMCT explanation
A claim is not a proven fact
We say who made the claim and where it appears. We do not present it as true simply because it is in a filing.
Showing a document does not mean the court accepted it
We check whether the document was only mentioned, formally offered, accepted, rejected or left undecided.
We identify who said what
We name the witness and hearing day, and separate testimony from questions or arguments made by lawyers.
Readers can see corrections
Important factual changes appear in the corrections record below with the date, reason and supporting source. Open verification notes remain visible until resolved.
May 18
Journal No. 1 records the opening of the impeachment court. It is not Trial Day 1.
July 6
Trial Day 1 appears in Journal No. 2. The two sets of numbers start differently.
September 22–23
Journal No. 29 covers two trial days. From this point, the journal and day numbers no longer match.
Corrections and open verification notes
Corrections record changes to published facts. Open notes identify material that still needs an official source or a completed review.
Loading commentaries…