The Philippine Senate court began presenting evidence for Article II of the impeachment complaints, which charges Vice President Sara Duterte with accumulating unexplained wealth, filing incomplete or false Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) from 2022 to 2024, and accepting money from prohibited sources.
Amparo Cabotaje-Tang, former Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice, testified for the prosecution on Monday, September 14, 2026. She laid out the legal framework at the heart of the case.
House prosecutor Chel Diokno (Akbayan Party-list) said the impeachment court will use Tang’s testimony to interpret and assess the financial and documentary evidence during the proceedings.
Sara Duterte is the subject of four impeachment complaints, relating to the alleged misappropriation of confidential funds, unexplained wealth together with the failure to disclose assets, suspected bribery and irregularities in procurement within the Department of Education, and the making of grave threats or incitement of sedition against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., his wife, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
In previous hearings, the prosecutors said they would compare the assets Duterte declared with relevant tax and bank records, citing a report by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) that traced 6.7 billion Philippine Pesos in transactions to accounts associated with Duterte and her husband from 2019 to 2023.
Misuse of Confidential Funds
The court looked into how Duterte managed confidential funds when she was mayor of Davao City and vice president.
The key witness, Gina Acosta, who is a special disbursing officer for both offices, said last month that she had given 500 million Philippine Pesos in four instalments of 125 million pesos each from the Office of the Vice President’s confidential funds to Col. Raymund Dante Lachica, head of the Vice-Presidential Security and Protection Group, even though he was not authorized as a bonded disbursing officer.
Senators questioned missing details in receipts, such as missing dates or names. They also pointed out that when the Commission on Audit returned the original receipts to Lachica, there were no audit findings or notices of disallowance under Acosta’s watch.
Malacañang spokesperson Claire Castro acknowledged that Acosta’s statements demonstrated Duterte’s control over the confidential funds but emphasized that the impeachment judges will decide the case as a whole, not just on one person’s testimony.
Lemuel Ortonio, Duterte’s Assistant Chief of Staff, stated that Duterte was aware of and had authorized all activities related to the confidential funds of his office. This statement came at a time of intense discussion over the unusual names appearing on the acknowledgement receipts and whether Lachica would be required to testify.
The prosecution has decided not to call any more witnesses connected to the first impeachment article, saying it already has sufficient evidence. Instead, the prosecution plans to have Duterte give testimony on the issues in the case.
Sheila Sison, who is leading Duterte’s defense team, invoked the latter’s constitutional right against self-incrimination in order to prevent her from being required to take the witness stand. Sison said Duterte’s participation through her legal counsel shows her involvement in the proceedings and thus contradicts the idea that she is unwilling to defend herself.
Grave threats
Duterte also faces impeachment and criminal complaints following her controversial remarks about a hitman arrangement targeting President Marcos Jr.
According to House prosecutors, Duterte’s statements, made public in a November 2024 online briefing, amount to a betrayal of public trust, and is a constitutional ground for impeachment.
A Quezon City Regional Trial Court issued a warrant for Duterte’s arrest on September 4, 2026, on three counts of grave threats. She posted bail a day later. Her arraignment was postponed at her legal team’s request, but her motion to disqualify the presiding judge was denied. A separate perjury complaint she filed was also dismissed for lack of evidence.
Voting debate
Four retired Supreme Court justices attended the impeachment trial on September 16, 2026, to comment on the number of votes required for conviction. Former Chief Justices Artemio Panganiban, Reynato Puno, and Hilario Davide Jr. said the two-thirds rule should apply only to senators eligible to vote, not always strictly to 16 out of 24, especially when some members cannot take part.
Davide and Puno stated that a strict interpretation could lead the Supreme Court to become involved. Panganiban questioned whether the absent senators should be counted and asked those not participating to resign. Retired Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna maintained that the Constitution establishes the threshold at 16 out of 24. Prosecutors backed the position that would lower the number of votes needed.
The session concluded with subpoenas issued for witnesses tied to claims of contracts benefiting Duterte’s business, Gencorp Industries, along with orders addressing possible sub judice* violations.
Sara Duterte’s camp claimed that lowering the voting requirement could lead to political tactics and said they would pursue the matter through all available legal channels.
Presiding Officer Escudero summoned Davao City Mayor Sebastian Duterte and SEC lawyer Gerardo del Rosario. The inquiry aims to find out if Davao City awarded contracts to Gencorp Industries, a company partly belonging to Sara Duterte, following reports of 14 million Philippine Pesos worth of city deals.
* The “sub judice” rule states that public comments or disclosures regarding a pending case are limited if, among other things, they could interfere with the proceedings or influence the court.
Photo © AMP