2026 ImpeachmentTracker tracks claims made in the impeachment trial and the evidence cited for them. Status labels describe the state of evidence in the proceeding — never guilt, innocence, or a predicted verdict. This is an independent, solo-developer civic project; corrections are welcome. Read our methodology & disclaimers.

2026 ImpeachmentTracker
All claimsFactual claimArticle I
“Contested” means:Both sides have put forward evidence or arguments and the matter is actively disputed. Neither position has been substantiated or rejected by the record as tracked so far.as of

Why this status: Both sides have put forward evidence or arguments and the matter is actively disputed. Neither position has been substantiated or rejected by the record as tracked so far.

Were ₱612.5M in OVP and DepEd confidential funds misused?

The ₱612.5M confidential-funds charge

The Articles of Impeachment allege that VP Duterte was responsible for the systematic misuse, misappropriation, and irregular disbursement of P612.5 million in confidential funds combined between the Office of the Vice President (P500M) and the Department of Education (P112.5M).

Claimed by House of Representatives of the Philippines — Impeaching body (Committee Report No. 261 / House Resolution No. 989) (Institution)

Last updated:

ShareFacebookX

Positions

Prosecution position

House Prosecutors

The Articles of Impeachment allege that VP Duterte was responsible for the systematic misuse, misappropriation, and irregular disbursement of P612.5 million in confidential funds combined between the Office of the Vice President (P500M) and the Department of Education (P112.5M).

Source-linked

Evidence

Defense response

Defense

On Day 1, defense counsel argued that the prosecution would rely on COA actions and PSA certifications to support the confidential-fund allegations, and pointed to the DBM and Office of the President approval process for the OVP confidential-fund release.

Source-linked

Response sources

Editor’s note

Day 1 put the Article I theory into the trial record through opening statements and subpoena fights, but no Article I witness testimony has been tested yet. The card remains a contested House allegation, with the defense response now reflected.

Developments

  1. Impeachment Trial - Day 1Context

    Day 1 put the Article I confidential-funds theory into the trial record through opening statements and subpoena fights; the defense pointed to COA finality and DBM/OP approval-process arguments.

  2. Impeachment Trial - Day 3Context

    Day 3 touched Article I procedurally: the court confirmed the BIR tax-record box ordered returned on July 6 had been sent back to the BIR sealed and untouched, the prosecution filed a motion for a subpoena duces tecum et testificandum for the box, and the Presiding Officer set July 15 oral arguments (with the bank-records question) on whether to compel it.

  3. Impeachment Trial - Day 10Supports this claim

    The House prosecution presented a Land Bank of the Philippines witness's testimony to prove that the bank's Shaw Boulevard branch processed the encashment of four checks of ₱125 million each payable to Gina F. Acosta, identified by the prosecutor as the Office of the Vice President's Special Disbursing Officer, on dates from December 2022 to July 2023. The witness also testified that no document designated Edward Fajarda as the Department of Education's Special Disbursing Officer and that the bank honored his encashment based on his identification and his being named as payee. Senator Panfilo Lacson observed a regular quarterly withdrawal pattern and Senator Raffy Tulfo cited COA Circular 2015-01 requiring an agency head or designated person to disburse confidential funds.

  4. Impeachment Trial - Day 11Supports this claim

    COA auditor Roderick Wamil testified that among the Vice Presidents and Education secretaries he audited from 2014 to 2024, only VP Sara Duterte held confidential-fund appropriations, and he identified her signature on the OVP's December 13, 2022 physical and financial plan (Exhibit P-1-14), which he said did not list specific confidential activities as required by Joint Circular 2015-01. The parties stipulated that the OVP issued four ₱125-million checks to special disbursing officer Gina Acosta on Dec. 20, 2022, Jan. 31, Apr. 18, and Jul. 13, 2023; the defense declined to stipulate to the prosecution's proposal that the December 2022 tranche was spent within 11 days.

  5. Impeachment Trial - Day 12Supports this claim

    A state auditor testified that three disbursement vouchers submitted to support the liquidation of DepEd confidential funds were approved by Undersecretary Annalyn M. Sevilla rather than the agency head, which he said violated Joint Circular 2015-01's requirement that the head of agency approve cash advances; VP Sara Duterte was the head of DepEd during the period covered. The witness testified the vouchers listed the disbursements under Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) rather than as allowable confidential-fund expenses under item 4.8, and that the same observation applied to the second- and third-quarter vouchers.

  6. Impeachment Trial - Day 13Supports this claim

    A state auditor testified that the OVP and DepEd submitted incomplete confidential-fund records, that the OVP presented no evidence of success for rewards payments as required by Joint Circular 2015-01, and that using medicines to pay intelligence informants was 'not normal' audit practice and was first encountered at the OVP. He testified that an agency's failure to liquidate properly gives rise to a presumption of misuse, while noting the documents reviewed showed no personal knowledge that the Vice President personally received or benefited from the funds. Defense counsel opposed the prosecution's motion for judicial notice of House records, arguing the respondent must be allowed to cross-examine before the TSNs, video recordings, and committee reports are admitted.

  7. Impeachment Trial - Day 14Supports this claim

    Presiding Officer Escudero ruled that the COA witness may testify based on her tabulation under Rule 130, Section 3C in relation to Section 7, as an exception to the original document rule. The witness testified that OVP activities charged to confidential funds — including a DepEd partners' appreciation night, Christmas activities, tree planting, gift-giving, wheelchair distribution, medical missions, and coordination meetings — are not among the uses permitted under Section 4.8 of the Joint Circular, and identified VP Sara Duterte as the accountable officer as head of both the OVP and DepEd in 2023.

  8. Impeachment Trial - Day 15Supports this claim

    The witness testified that COA disallowed the OVP's P375 million in 2023 confidential funds because Acosta transferred them to Lachica, and laid out the confidential fund budgets: P125 million for the OVP in Q4 2022, P500 million for 2023 (of which P375 million was received), and P150 million for DepEd (against which a P112.5 million cash advance was taken). Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian, citing House transcripts, said Acosta reported that P125 million was given to Lachica in Q4 2022 and that Fajarda, per transcripts dated November 25, 2024, said P37.5 million went to Colonel Nolasco. Gatchalian argued that if a special disbursing officer's transfer of funds to another person was the basis for disallowing the DepEd funds, then the Q4 2022 OVP funds and the entire DepEd confidential funds should likewise be disallowed. The witness agreed that the entire P612.5 million across the OVP and DepEd could potentially be disallowed and that accountable officers would need to return the funds.

  9. Impeachment Trial - Day 16Supports this claim

    The prosecution counsel alleged the OVP withdrew all ₱500 million of its confidential funds as cold cash on December 20, 2022 and February 6, April 25 and July 14, 2023 under the Vice President's supervision, including ₱125 million spent in eleven days in late 2022, delivered to OVP security officer Colonel Lachica—said to be not an accountable officer—and left unliquidated in claimed violation of Joint Circular 2015-01. The former special disbursing officer testified she personally encashed the ₱125 million cash advance on December 20, 2022 and that Vice President Sara Duterte instructed her to release it to Colonel Lachica once the cheque was encashed. She also confirmed the ₱125 million quarterly figure in the 2023 Physical and Financial Plan copied the 2022 fourth-quarter amount.

  10. Impeachment Trial - Day 17Supports this claim

    Former OVP special disbursing officer Gina Acosta testified that the ₱125 million in cash was placed in four traveling bags, and that Vice President Sara Duterte responded 'okay' when the four bags were suggested to her. In earlier testimony played on video, Acosta stated that the release of the ₱125 million to Col. Lachica had Duterte's approval.

  11. Impeachment Trial - Day 18Supports this claim

    A witness testified that Vice President Sara Duterte personally requested the P250-million confidential fund from the DBM, decided the amount, and signed the certifications attached to the liquidation reports. House prosecution counsel argued that the failure to account for P500 million in confidential funds gives rise to a prima facie presumption of misappropriation under the law.

  12. Impeachment Trial - Day 19Supports this claim

    The witness testified that the OVP received a Notice of Disallowance from COA for 2022 and had submitted replies to the initial observation, and stated that the Q4 2022 and 2023 confidential funds were requested to safeguard implementation of the OVP's programs rather than to fund the programs themselves. One senator-judge asserted the disallowance covered P73.3 million of December 2022 spending, including P24.93 million on medicines and P34.857 million on goods categorized as intelligence rewards; another stated that P122 million was distributed to informants as rewards from December 2022 to September 2023, which the witness confirmed based on information from security officers.

  13. Impeachment Trial - Day 20Supports this claim

    Prosecution counsel stated that DepEd submitted the certification to the COA Intelligence and Confidential Funds Auditing Office to support P15,540,000 allegedly paid as rewards from DepEd confidential funds, expenses questioned in COA Audit Observation Memorandum No. 2024-015 dated January 1, 2024.

  14. Impeachment Trial - Day 22Supports this claim

    The prosecution is offering the testimony of Ms. Marissa B. Grande to prove, among other things, that the PSA verified all 2,669 alleged payees of OVP and DepEd confidential funds for 2022 and 2023 one name at a time (1,992 from OVP, 677 from DepEd), at the request of the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability.

Evidence tiers, explained
Tier 1

The official record of the proceeding itself: session video (VODs) and transcripts, filed pleadings, court orders and rulings, admitted exhibits.

Tier 2

An official or primary document from outside the proceeding: an agency report (e.g. a COA audit), an official order or gazette entry, an authenticated original statement.

Tier 3

Reporting that describes primary material rather than being it — one step removed from the record, whoever the publisher is.

Tier 4

Commentary, analysis, or opinion: an editorial, column, press release, social-media post, or other advocacy or self-published take.

Tier 5

A publicly circulating claim whose provenance cannot be traced to any of the tiers above; never used to set a claim's status.

Sources