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
“Evidence presented” means:Evidence has been formally presented or accepted in the record for this claim (e.g. an official filing, an authenticated recording, or an audit finding). This describes the strength of the paper trail, not a verdict of guilt or innocence.as of

Why this status: Evidence has been formally presented or accepted in the record for this claim (e.g. an official filing, an authenticated recording, or an audit finding). This describes the strength of the paper trail, not a verdict of guilt or innocence.

What did state auditors disallow in the OVP's 2023 confidential funds?

COA's ₱375M disallowance

The Commission on Audit issued a Notice of Disallowance dated March 31, 2026 holding VP Sara Duterte and three other OVP officials personally liable for P375 million in 2023 confidential-fund disbursements, citing insufficient documentation of claimed intelligence and surveillance activities.

Claimed by Commission on Audit (COA) — Constitutional audit body (Institution)

Last updated:

ShareFacebookX

Positions

Institutional finding

Institution

The Commission on Audit issued a Notice of Disallowance dated March 31, 2026 holding VP Sara Duterte and three other OVP officials personally liable for P375 million in 2023 confidential-fund disbursements, citing insufficient documentation of claimed intelligence and surveillance activities.

Source-linked

Evidence

Respondent (VP Duterte) response

Respondent (VP Duterte)

On Day 1, defense counsel argued that the COA disallowance was not final, that further remedies remained available, and that the COA papers did not themselves state a finding of confidential-fund misuse.

Source-linked

Response sources

Editor’s note

The COA disallowance is supported by the cited public record. The live dispute is how much weight the impeachment court should give it while reconsideration or further remedies may remain, and whether it proves misuse as opposed to documentation defects.

Developments

  1. Impeachment Trial - Day 1Context

    Defense counsel argued on Day 1 that the COA disallowance was not final and that further remedies remained available.

  2. Impeachment Trial - Day 11Supports this claim

    Prosecution counsel offered COA Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office state auditor Roderick C. Wamil as a witness on the OVP and DepEd confidential-fund liquidations for 2022-2023. Wamil testified that he found documentation deficiencies, prompting Audit Observation Memoranda to the OVP (dated September 14 and October 3, 2023; February 1, 2024; and August 8, 2024) and AOM No. 2024-015 to DepEd, and that, the OVP's submission to ICFAO still being insufficient, COA issued a notice of suspension dated December 13, 2023.

  3. Impeachment Trial - Day 12Supports this claim

    COA state auditor Roderick Wamil testified that the OVP's first- and second-quarter 2023 accomplishment reports listed line items - medical and food aid of P40 million and incentive or travel payments - that are not allowable confidential expenses under Item 4.8 of Joint Circular 2015-01. He further testified that a P12-million reward in the second-quarter report lacked any document evidencing the success of information-gathering or surveillance activities, as required under Item 4.8.5.

  4. Impeachment Trial - Day 13Context

    COA state auditor Roderick Wamil testified that the OVP's December 21-31, 2022 confidential-fund liquidation was supported only by 849 acknowledgement receipts, with no official or sales invoices - the first all-acknowledgement-receipt submission he had encountered in 10 years - and that a Notice of Disallowance carries an immediate obligation to restitute that a pending Supreme Court certiorari petition does not stay. Senator-judge Imee Marcos argued that, under Joint Circular 2015-01, the accountable officers are the Special Disbursing Officers Gina Acosta (OVP) and Edward Fajarda (DepEd), not the Vice President; Wamil replied that the head of agency also bears responsibility for confidential-fund usage.

  5. Impeachment Trial - Day 14Supports this claim

    A COA witness testified that after the OVP filed a petition for review on February 5, 2025, the COA Commission Proper on April 10, 2026 affirmed a notice of disallowance against the OVP totaling P73,287,000 — P69,787,000 for payment of rewards and P3,500,000 for supplies. The witness said COA proceeded directly to a notice of disallowance, citing Gina Acosta's sworn statement that, by VP Sara Duterte's directive, she transferred the confidential-fund cash advance to Colonel Lachica in alleged violation of the 2015 Joint Circular.

  6. Impeachment Trial - Day 15Supports this claim

    Presiding Officer Escudero ruled that the impeachment court will decide the admissibility of the acknowledgement receipts (ARs) once they are formally offered, after the clerk compares the certified true copies submitted by both parties, without requiring the witness to attest that the copies match. The witness testified that the OVP's confidential expenditures were disallowed because the submitted Protective Intelligence Operations Reports and certification did not sufficiently prove the success of information gathering, stating the proof she required was an apprehension, while noting that Joint Memorandum Circular 2015-01 requires only 'proof of success of information gathering,' not an arrest. Escudero asserted that the witness's interpretation requiring apprehensions is not found in the circular. Counsel further elicited that no notice of suspension was issued for the OVP's confidential expenses for the first to third quarters of 2023, arguing the OVP had no opportunity to comment before the Notice of Disallowance was issued.

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