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 sessions
Published recap

Impeachment Trial - Day 7

On Day 7 of the impeachment trial, prosecution and defense counsel argued whether the Supreme Court's incumbency test in Duterte v. House of Representatives binds the impeachment court and whether it is part of the ruling's ratio decidendi or obiter dictum. Counsel also disputed whether Article II's unexplained-wealth allegation is sufficiently specific and whether Section 8-A of the Anti-Money Laundering Act bars a subpoena for financial records. The court then granted the prosecution's subpoenas for the Vice President's bank, AMLC, and BIR records — excluding foreign-currency deposits and two entities without a shown prima facie link — with documents due to the Clerk of Court by July 30.

Last updated:

ShareFacebookX
Transcript status: Machine-cleanedGo to the transcript in SenateHearingTranscripts

Session record

Claims introduced or updated

  • No new standing claim cards were added this session; four existing cards were updated.
  • On "The Supreme Court's one-year-bar ruling," prosecution counsel argued the power to decide what is impeachable belongs exclusively to the Senate impeachment court and that due-process property protections do not apply, while defense counsel argued the Duterte incumbency pronouncement is ratio decidendi applying to all modes of impeachment; prosecution counsel said the incumbency test is in any event satisfied.
  • On "The unexplained-wealth allegation," defense counsel argued Article II states no factual basis or specific act and rests only on SALN growth from 2007 to 2025 with no attached documents, while prosecution counsel argued jurisprudence sets the reckoning point at the official's first day of service and requires reviewing the requested records.
  • On "Prosecution: court powers override secrecy laws," Senator-Judge Risa Hontiveros stated for the record that Section 8-A of the Anti-Money Laundering Act is not an absolute privilege against a subpoena, while defense counsel argued the 2021 amendment is an absolute prohibition with no exceptions and that the court cannot rise above the Bill of Rights.
  • On "The defense's bid to dismiss the case," defense counsel and Senator Alan Peter Cayetano argued impeachable acts are limited to those committed during the officer's current term, while prosecution counsel characterized that incumbency statement as obiter dictum tied to the first mode of impeachment and the one-year ban.

Evidence & exhibits

  • Defense counsel referenced the Vice President's SALN covering 2007 to 2025 and stated that no supporting documents were attached to the complaint.
  • Prosecution counsel referred to requested records they said are needed to determine whether reported wealth is manifestly disproportionate to lawful income.

Court rulings

  • The impeachment court granted the prosecution's subpoenas duces tecum for bank records covering peso-denominated accounts of the Vice President, Atty. Manases Carpio, the Carpio Lawyers partnership, and 19 of 21 listed corporate entities, with documents to be submitted to the Clerk of Court by July 30, 2026; requests covering JTC Group of Companies and Pikimong-Pikimong Philippines Corporation were denied for failure to establish prima facie relevance.
  • The court granted the subpoena directed to the Anti-Money Laundering Council for records pertaining to the Vice President, her spouse, and the connected entities, ruling that AMLA Section 8-A regulates unauthorized disclosures by AMLC personnel and does not nullify the subpoena powers of the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.
  • The court granted the subpoena for Bureau of Internal Revenue records, finding the documents reasonably described, readily identifiable, and prima facie relevant to Article II, and allowed production of records from 2007 to 2021 strictly to establish a comparative baseline — not as proof of a separate impeachable offense.
  • The court denied the subpoena requests covering foreign currency deposits, citing Republic Act No. 6426, which recognizes only the depositor's written permission, and the Supreme Court's 2012 TRO in PS Bank v. Senate Impeachment Court from the Corona trial.
  • The presiding officer ruled that the court treats each prosecution motion as a single, indivisible motion — while it may grant only part of the relief sought — and issued a subpoena ad testificandum for two Land Bank officials to attend the Wednesday trial session.
  • The presiding officer referred Senator-Judge Marcoleta's letter-manifestation asking that his vote be considered to the Senate as a legislative body, noting an Estrada-trial precedent; the impeachment court will follow whatever the Senate decides.

Open questions

  • Will the impeachment court rule on whether the Duterte v. House of Representatives incumbency test binds it and whether the pronouncement is ratio decidendi or obiter dictum?
  • Will the subpoenaed banks, the AMLC, and the BIR comply with the granted subpoenas by the July 30, 2026 return date?
  • Will the court rule on the defense's contention that Article II states no sufficient factual basis or specific act?
  • How will the Senate, convening as a legislative body, act on Senator-Judge Marcoleta's request to have his vote counted?

Claims updated in this session