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 claim
“Unverified” means:The claim has been made, but the evidence currently on the public record is not yet sufficient to assess it either way.as of

Why this status: The claim has been made, but the evidence currently on the public record is not yet sufficient to assess it either way.

What does the record show about the elements and the evidence the NBI relied on in building its inciting to sedition case against the Vice President?

Basis of NBI's inciting to sedition case

The NBI witness testified that the elements of inciting to sedition the Bureau sought to establish are whether the speeches tend to stir people against the government, disturb the peace of the community, or undermine public safety, and that government agencies tasked with protecting national security had issued statements characterizing the Vice President's utterances as an active threat and a matter of national security. The witness testified that the Bureau factored social media comments and reactions from netizens and supporters into its inciting to sedition complaint, including comments from supporters expressing readiness to act and comments referencing 'people power' and 'nasa likod mo kami' drawn from the November 23, 2024 interview. The witness further testified that Facebook comments stating 'lusubin na natin ang Malacañang' were found but were not included in the authentication of evidence for the investigation.

Claimed by Jeremy Lotoc (Witness)

Last updated:

ShareFacebookX

Positions

Witness statement

Witness

The NBI witness testified that the elements of inciting to sedition the Bureau sought to establish are whether the speeches tend to stir people against the government, disturb the peace of the community, or undermine public safety, and that government agencies tasked with protecting national security had issued statements characterizing the Vice President's utterances as an active threat and a matter of national security. The witness testified that the Bureau factored social media comments and reactions from netizens and supporters into its inciting to sedition complaint, including comments from supporters expressing readiness to act and comments referencing 'people power' and 'nasa likod mo kami' drawn from the November 23, 2024 interview. The witness further testified that Facebook comments stating 'lusubin na natin ang Malacañang' were found but were not included in the authentication of evidence for the investigation.

Source-linked

“The witness testified that the elements of inciting to sedition they are establishing include whether the speeches tend to stir people against the government, disturb the peace of the community, or undermine public safety.”

Evidence

Developments

  1. Impeachment Trial - Day 8Supports this claim

    The witness testified that a task force compared statements by the Vice President about removing the President's head with remarks by Davao City Mayor Sebastian Duterte at an April 12, 2026 Rage Coalition rally — cited in the whereas clauses of Administrative Order No. 11 — in which he said they needed only one head, that of Bongbong Marcos. The witness testified that the Vice President had stated on November 23 that she had already contacted someone who agreed to kill the President, and characterized her statements as a plan to kill the President rather than a threat. Because both sets of remarks came from one family and referred to the President's head, the witness said the task force considered whether there was a conspiracy. The witness testified the task force regards the threat to the President's life as serious, active, and continuing, constituting a national security threat.

  2. Impeachment Trial - Day 9Context

    The witness testified that a special task force — formed after the case involving Mayor Baste Duterte — has an internal agreement to weigh grave threat and inciting-to-sedition charges where the elements are established. Senator-judge Panfilo Lacson questioned why the NBI investigated Vice President Sara Duterte over similar statements while her brother, Mayor Baste Duterte, was not similarly investigated.

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.