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 claimsLegal claim
“Sustained” means:A procedural or legal position was upheld by the relevant body (e.g. a court or the impeachment court). This is a ruling on procedure or law, not on the underlying factual allegations.as of

Why this status: A procedural or legal position was upheld by the relevant body (e.g. a court or the impeachment court). This is a ruling on procedure or law, not on the underlying factual allegations.

Why was the first impeachment attempt voided?

The Supreme Court's one-year-bar ruling

The Supreme Court ruled with finality that the first impeachment complaints against VP Duterte, transmitted to the Senate on February 5, 2025, were unconstitutional for violating the one-year bar on impeachment proceedings under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution.

Claimed by Supreme Court of the Philippines — Judicial body; ruled on the constitutionality of the first impeachment (Institution)

Last updated:

ShareFacebookX

Positions

Institutional finding

Institution

The Supreme Court ruled with finality that the first impeachment complaints against VP Duterte, transmitted to the Senate on February 5, 2025, were unconstitutional for violating the one-year bar on impeachment proceedings under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution.

Source-linked

Evidence

Editor’s note

This remains a final Supreme Court ruling about the first impeachment. On Day 1, the impeachment court treated that prior case as archived while proceeding with the second impeachment trial.

Developments

  1. Impeachment Trial - Day 4Context

    Counsel stated that a 2025 impeachment complaint against VP Sara was filed on February 5, 2025, and further stated that it was signed by 215 representatives. The witness testified that he is not familiar with the filing of the impeachment complaint against the Vice President. The session thus placed a February 5, 2025 filing date on the record as context for this claim, asserted by counsel and neither confirmed nor disputed by the witness.

  2. Impeachment Trial - Day 6 (oral arguments)Context

    Defense counsel argued that Duterte v. House of Representatives is controlling authority, asserting the Due Process Clause applies at all stages of impeachment, that an impeachable offense must be committed while occupying an impeachable office and in relation to that office across all modes of impeachment, and that the one-year bar was triggered as an effect of a due-process failure. Counsel noted the Corona case was tried and decided before Duterte, that the Court was cognizant of it yet still imposed its guidelines, and quoted the decision's phrase 'we clarify the constitutional requirements of impeachment' to argue the definition was a ruling rather than obiter dictum. Prosecution counsel countered that the cited pronouncements are mere obiter dicta because that case concerned a different mode of impeachment (one-third of House members filing) rather than the procedure at issue.

  3. Impeachment Trial - Day 7Context

    Prosecution Counsel argued that the power to decide whether an offense is impeachable belongs exclusively to the Senate impeachment court, and that substantive due process protections for life, liberty, and property do not apply because public office is not property and the respondent's life or liberty is not at issue. Defense Counsel maintained that the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Duterte v. House of Representatives — that the basis of any charge must be for impeachable acts committed in relation to the office and during the officer's current term — is part of the ratio decidendi rather than obiter dictum, and applies to all modes of impeachment, not only the one-third mode. Prosecution Counsel countered that even assuming that pronouncement is not obiter dictum, the prosecution has satisfied that incumbency test.

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