A reader’s guide to what happened in court, what the documents show, what remains disputed and what the senator-judges have actually decided.
The recent hearings have moved through SALNs, corporate filings, government contracts and property records tied to Article II.
This is still the prosecution’s presentation. The records may establish that transactions, companies or properties exist. They do not automatically prove that Sara Duterte concealed an asset, received unlawful income or influenced a government award.
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.
These are accusations made by the House. Each one still has to be proven before the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court.
Alleged misuse and irregular liquidation of ₱500 million in OVP funds and ₱112.5 million in DepEd funds.
Record so far: witnesses and audit documents have been presented; their meaning remains disputed.Alleged unexplained wealth, incomplete SALNs and continued business interests while in office.
Current phase: this is where the recent hearings are focused.Alleged cash gifts or payments to officials intended to influence procurement or bypass government rules.
Still ahead: the court has not completed a full presentation of this article.Alleged assassination arrangements, grave threats and statements said to amount to inciting sedition.
Record so far: the prosecution finished presenting its Article IV evidence on July 22.Witnesses and official custodians have identified confidential-fund checks, audit actions, SALNs, SEC filings and procurement records.
What that establishes: the records and transactions exist in the official files described by the witnesses.
The defense challenges relevance, admissibility, time periods and the leap from a record’s existence to personal wrongdoing by the Vice President.
What remains contested: ownership, intent, unlawful benefit and the legal meaning of many records.
The court changed how the eventual conviction threshold will be counted and refused to treat unanswered requests for admission as evidence.
What it has not decided: guilt or innocence under any of the four articles.
Major formal actions that changed the trial's rules, evidence, witnesses or calendar. The daily notes retain the complete hearing-by-hearing procedural record.
Loading court actions…
Comments, questions and arguments by individual senator-judges are not rulings unless the court adopts them.
These are the developments that altered the record or narrowed the questions before the court.
Two land-registry officials identified properties registered to Mans Carpio. Whether the SALNs disclosed them remained disputed.
Read provisional Day 32 notesMayor Sebastian Duterte testified about Gencorp contracts. The court ruled that silence on 104 disputed requests would not count as an admission.
Read Day 31PhilGEPS could identify procurement records but not declare the contracts unlawful. Firearm records showed ownership, not unexplained wealth by themselves.
Read Day 30I’m still working through parts of the record, including the video exhibits, larger annexes, related legal cases and links between hearings and documents. What is already published is based on material I have reviewed. Anything awaiting confirmation is clearly marked, and I’ll continue updating the tracker as new records become available.
The legal fights, strong and weak performances, revealing admissions, low blows and human moments that shaped how each hearing unfolded.
Thirteen to one, with six not participating.
The senator-judges abandoned the automatically fixed requirement of 16 votes and adopted a capacity-based denominator for this trial.
Senate Journal No. 29“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 reportA “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 reportThere 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.
We show both the trial day and the Senate’s journal number so the dates do not get mixed up.
Loading the hearing list…
All 98 files are stored in the MCT archive: 91 PDFs and 7 video exhibits. Every written file now includes a short overview and the main points to look for.
Loading all 98 documents…
The petitions, rulings and still-unresolved requests that can change how the impeachment trial proceeds.
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…
A separate watchlist for criminal complaints, Ombudsman matters, audit proceedings and lawyer-discipline complaints outside the impeachment court.
Each entry says whether something is only a complaint, already in court, under appeal or finally decided. We do not turn allegations into findings.
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…
These concern Duterte's status as a lawyer. They are separate from impeachment and from any criminal liability.
Loading lawyer-discipline matters…
Commentaries, hearing notes and opinion pieces that help explain the Sara Duterte impeachment case.
Loading the MCT commentary collection…
Choose an issue to see the accusation, the answer, the record so far, what remains unsettled and what the Impeachment Court has actually decided.
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…
How MCT separates accusations, testimony, submitted records, admitted evidence, court rulings and our own explanations.
We say who made the claim and where it appears. We do not present it as true simply because it is in a filing.
We check whether the document was only mentioned, formally offered, accepted, rejected or left undecided.
We name the witness and hearing day, and separate testimony from questions or arguments made by lawyers.
Important factual changes appear in the corrections record below with the date, reason and supporting source. Open verification notes remain visible until resolved.
Journal No. 1 records the opening of the impeachment court. It is not Trial Day 1.
Trial Day 1 appears in Journal No. 2. The two sets of numbers start differently.
Journal No. 29 covers two trial days. From this point, the journal and day numbers no longer match.
Corrections record changes to published facts. Open notes identify material that still needs an official source or a completed review.
Loading the corrections record…
Loading commentaries…