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 claimsProcedural claim
“Deferred” means:A procedural or legal question has been raised but a ruling is still pending.as of

Why this status: A procedural or legal question has been raised but a ruling is still pending.

Are the Articles of Impeachment legally defective?

The defense's bid to dismiss the case

In her June 1, 2026 Answer to the Senate impeachment court, VP Duterte asked that the case be dismissed, with her lawyers stating the Articles of Impeachment suffer constitutional, procedural, and substantive defects, filed without prejudice to constitutional issues then pending before the Supreme Court.

Claimed by Sara Z. Duterte — Vice President of the Philippines; respondent in the impeachment trial (Respondent)

Last updated:

ShareFacebookX

Positions

Respondent's statement

Respondent (VP Duterte)

In her June 1, 2026 Answer to the Senate impeachment court, VP Duterte asked that the case be dismissed, with her lawyers stating the Articles of Impeachment suffer constitutional, procedural, and substantive defects, filed without prejudice to constitutional issues then pending before the Supreme Court.

Source-linked

“We believe it is best that the matters raised in the Answer be addressed before the impeachment court rather than through publicity.”

Evidence

House Prosecutors response

House Prosecutors

House prosecutors opened their case and opposed treating the defense's constitutional and procedural objections as grounds to stop the trial before evidence is presented.

Source-linked

Response sources

Editor’s note

The dismissal request remains unresolved. Day 1 and Day 2 instead moved the impeachment court into trial management, opening statements, subpoenas, and the first Article IV evidence presentation.

Developments

  1. Impeachment Trial - Day 4Contradicts this claim

    Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo stated he did not recall seeing a specific denial of the contracting allegation in the defense's Answer and said he would check the official records. Prosecution counsel separately cited paragraphs 202 and 203 of the Vice President's Answer, which counsel dated May 25, 2026, as claiming her threatening statements were merely an exercise of freedom of expression, while a witness testified that the NBI investigation considered whether those statements fell within the confines of free speech. Defense counsel stated that the Answer denied all allegations in the impeachment complaint, including the contracting allegation, through both general and specific denials.

  2. Impeachment Trial - Day 5Contradicts this claim

    Defense counsel asserted before the impeachment court that both grave threats and inciting to sedition are not impeachable offenses. The prosecution's witness testified that grave threats is a felony under the Revised Penal Code and that the penalty is one degree higher when the offense is charged in relation to Section 6 of Republic Act 10175.

  3. Impeachment Trial - Day 7Supports this claim

    Defense counsel, citing Territory v. House of Representatives, argued that impeachable offenses are limited to acts or omissions committed while the public officer occupies the impeachable office and in relation to that office, and Senator Alan Peter Cayetano stated that Duterte v. House of Representatives laid down two elements—that the act be impeachable under Article XI, Paragraph 2 and committed during the officer's term. Prosecution counsel countered that the case's ratio decidendi concerned the first mode of impeachment and the one-year ban rather than any incumbency requirement, characterizing the incumbency statement as obiter dictum, and argued that the power to decide what constitutes an impeachable offense is lodged exclusively with the impeachment court.

  4. Impeachment Trial - Day 8Supports this claim

    Defense counsel objected that the witness's testimony covered new topics not included in the articles of impeachment. Counsel asserted that this violated the respondent's right to be promptly and fully apprised of the exact charges against her.

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