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 II
“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.

Does VP Duterte's declared wealth growth match her lawful income?

The unexplained-wealth allegation

The Articles of Impeachment allege VP Duterte's declared net worth grew from about P7.2 million in 2007 to about P88.5 million in 2024, a disparity that House prosecutors describe as disproportionate to her lawful income, alongside alleged gaps between her SALN entries and bank records.

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 VP Duterte's declared net worth grew from about P7.2 million in 2007 to about P88.5 million in 2024, a disparity that House prosecutors describe as disproportionate to her lawful income, alongside alleged gaps between her SALN entries and bank records.

Source-linked

Evidence

Defense response

Defense

VP Duterte has said her properties and funds were properly declared; on Day 1, defense counsel also objected that requested bank and AMLC records were overly broad and not tied to specific allegations within the impeachable period.

Source-linked

Response sources

Editor’s note

Days 3-6 moved Article II from preview into active contest: both sides submitted memoranda on the requested subpoenas, and in Day 6 oral argument the prosecution cited an AMLC report marked as Exhibit P-2-7-8 while the defense argued the Articles identify no specific bank account. The underlying bank, AMLA, and BIR records have not been presented or admitted in the impeachment court; the court is set to vote on the subpoenas on July 20.

Developments

  1. Impeachment Trial - Day 1Context

    Day 1 previewed the Article II financial-record theory and surfaced defense objections to the breadth and relevance of requested bank, AMLC, BIR, and SALN material.

  2. Impeachment Trial - Day 3Context

    The bank-records subpoena question was bundled with the BIR-box question for July 15 oral arguments, with each side allotted 10 minutes and possible three-minute rebuttal; no bank or AMLC evidence was admitted on Day 3.

  3. Impeachment Trial - Day 4Supports this claim

    The presiding officer announced that the impeachment court had received a memorandum from counsel for the respondents regarding the issuance of subpoenas for bank records, AMLC records, and BIR records. The presiding officer then scheduled oral arguments on the subpoena requests for Wednesday, to be heard after the testimony of the witnesses.

  4. Impeachment Trial - Day 5Context

    The Presiding Officer stated that the impeachment court would decide as a body the following day on the twin motions to subpoena the BIR and the AMLA, because the parties would need time to analyze whatever data is produced should the subpoenas be granted. The Presiding Officer ruled the twin motions would be resolved jointly because the memoranda were submitted jointly by the parties.

  5. Impeachment Trial - Day 6 (oral arguments)Supports this claim

    Counsel for the prosecution cited an AMLC report submitted to the House Committee on Justice and marked as Exhibit P-2-7-8, stating that Vice President Sara Duterte's financial activity rose sharply from 2007, exceeded 400 million pesos annually between 2009 and 2013 (with peaks of 704.93 million pesos in 2009, 648.58 million in 2010, and 597.15 million in 2011), and totaled more than 3 billion pesos from 2007 to 2013, a period during which counsel said she served as Vice Mayor and then Mayor of Davao City. Counsel formally requested that the impeachment court issue subpoenas for the bank records, AMLA documents, and BIR documents of the Vice President and her husband. Defense counsel asserted that the Sabalia and Cabrera complaints filed before the House accused the Vice President of amassing unexplained wealth but attached no financial transaction records or SALNs, and that the Articles of Impeachment do not allege that any unexplained wealth was deposited into a specific bank account.

  6. Impeachment Trial - Day 7Supports this claim

    Defense counsel argued that Article II's unexplained-wealth allegation states no factual basis, source, or specific act by the Vice President, resting only on the growth of her SALN from 2007 to 2025, with no supporting documents attached to the complaint. Prosecution counsel argued that Supreme Court jurisprudence sets the reckoning point at the official's first day of service and requires examining all income amassed to determine whether it is manifestly disproportionate to lawful reported income—facts they said can only be determined by reviewing the requested records.

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