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 28

Session recap: Impeachment Trial - Day 28 (2026-09-22, 2026-09-22-impeachment-trial-day-28). Covers source-supported material as of 2026-10-07T11:40+08:00, not a complete account.

Last updated:

ShareFacebookX
Transcript status: ASR rawGo to the transcript in SenateHearingTranscripts

Session record

Claims introduced or updated

None published for this session yet.

Evidence & exhibits

  • Session video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtoJDFavcLY
  • Canonical transcript: https://hearings.pinoysagainstcorruption.com/sessions/2026-09-22-impeachment-trial-day-28
  • The witness confirmed that both summaries prepared by his office are undated, unsigned, and bear neither the seal nor the logo of the SEC or its division.
  • The witness testified that the PhilGEPS system, under procurement law, aims to promote transparency and serve as a single electronic portal where all government agencies, GOCCs, LGUs up to barangay and SK level, including SUCs and the judiciary, must record their procurement activities.
  • The witness testified that the division's statistical bulletins, posted publicly on the PhilGEPS website, show that the most commonly used government procurement modes are small value procurement and competitive bidding.
  • The witness testified that for competitive bidding, the technical documents encountered in the PhilGEPS system include the invitation to bid, bid documents, supplemental bid notice, notice of award, notice to proceed, back resolution, contracts, and memorandum.
  • The witness testified that for small value procurement, the technical documents in the PhilGEPS system include the request for quotation, purchase order, abstract of quotation, notice of award, notice to proceed, and back resolution.
  • Sec witness afs review limits
  • The witness confirmed that the SEC only reviews audited financial statements (AFS) for corporate compliance, completeness, and reporting rules.
  • The witness confirmed that the Bureau of Internal Revenue, not the SEC, cross-checks audited financial statements against reported tax returns or books of accounts.
  • The witness testified that the SEC cannot determine irregularities or misrepresentations in the audited financial statements and only confirms whether they are filed.
  • The witness testified that the SEC is not aware whether the audited financial statements were flagged by the Bureau of Internal Revenue for any tax compliance issue.
  • The defense stated for the record that the summary document provided appears to be undated, unsigned by the witness, and uncertified.
  • The witness testified that he prepared a summary or table of the voluminous procurement documents, made only the day before the hearing.
  • The witness testified that the 'extracted data' tab in the provided USB contains data directly extracted from the system without any manual encoding intervention.
  • Sec witness dividend testimony
  • The SEC witness stated that in the documents processed through him, he saw no company declare dividends, except for companies mentioned the previous day.
  • The SEC witness testified that dividend declaration is at the board's discretion, and that it is not normal/permissible when a company has no unrestricted retained earnings.
  • The SEC official testified that there is no information on dividend declarations for these companies in the summary.
  • The SEC official testified that, in his presumption, about 50% of companies generally fail to declare dividends.
  • Sec witness gurley dela cruz common officer
  • Gencorp exhibit pretrial order dispute
  • Defense counsel stated that the documents the witness was to identify and authenticate were not listed in the pre-trial brief or the Pre-Trial Order, and reserved the right to object and defer cross-examination.
  • The presiding officer confirmed that the court likewise has no copy of the exhibits as being marked.
  • The prosecution moved for mandatory judicial notice that the Ombudsman Records Division OIC already testified that the respondent declared in her 2024 and 2025 SALN that she is a shareholder of GenCorp Industries, Inc., acquired in 2013.
  • Philgeps witness credentials
  • The witness testified that EGPOD is the division with sole custody of the PhilGEPS system database and processes procurement requests from internal and external stakeholders.
  • The witness testified that as Division Chief he is the overall custodian of the PhilGEPS System Database and issues certifications in response to subpoenas and data requests.
  • The witness testified that prior to joining PS-DBM he was Information Technology Officer 2 of the Armed Forces of the Philippines Retirement Separation Benefit System (AFPRSBS).
  • Sec corporate records authentication
  • The witness confirmed that the corporate records he identified during direct examination are records on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
  • The witness testified that the SEC compiled and produced the corporate records upon the request of the House of Representatives.
  • The witness confirmed the corporate records were first requested in relation to hearings of the House Committee on Justice and that he testified under oath during those committee hearings.
  • The witness testified that he recalls the subpoena being dated April 14, but could not recall the exact date he was questioned by the Committee on Justice.
  • Sec witness exhibit p226 afs metro city chow
  • The witness read from Exhibit P-226-2-H (2024 audited financial statements of Metro City Chow Foods Corporation) that management is responsible for preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements free from material misstatement.
  • The witness read from the Statement of Management Responsibility that the Board of Directors oversees the financial reporting process and reviews, approves, and submits the financial statements to the stockholders.
  • The witness confirmed that the Statement of Management Responsibility is notarized and is thus a sworn statement, and that it is a requirement for accepting a company's financial statements.
  • The witness read from Note 1 of the audited financial statements that the financial statements were approved and authorized by the Board of Directors on March 31, 2025.
  • Sec witness no vp involvement knowledge
  • The witness testified that the SEC has no personal knowledge or information whether the Vice President is involved in the day-to-day operations of any of the 16 corporations.
  • The witness testified that the SEC has no personal knowledge whether the Vice President is aware of the filing of general information sheets by the corporations, and that someone else files on behalf of the company.
  • On cross/recross by defense, the witness stated he has no personal knowledge whether Vice President Sara Duterte participated in the board approval of the audited financial statements, and merely relies on what is written in the documents.
  • Gencorp exhibit marking p26
  • The presiding officer stated for the record that the witness confirmed having a summary of the documents, that copies of the summary and USB were furnished to the parties, and that the USB contained soft copies of all hard copies of the documents before the witness.
  • The defense formally requested copies of the documents printed for the hearing and to have their own copies marked as exhibits.
  • The prosecution requested the marking of the USBs along with the 49 contracts and 231 documents comprising 484 pages as Exhibit P-2-6, with marking to be done before the Clerk of Court.
  • Sec witness certifies corporate documents
  • The witness confirmed that the SEC has no personal knowledge of agreements between incorporators in setting up a corporation, of the source of funds for initial paid-up capital, or of the reasons for the proportions of initial share subscriptions.
  • Sec witness shareholder status
  • The SEC witness testified that a person holding shares of stock retains an interest in the corporation regardless of whether dividends are received.
  • The SEC witness testified that a passive shareholder who only relies on dividends and does not participate in management remains a shareholder.
  • The SEC witness testified that a shareholder who holds shares passively, merely receiving or expecting dividends, remains a shareholder even without participating in management or operations.
  • A Senator-Judge asserted that GenCorp's own corporate officers and owners would be able to testify on Vice President Sara Duterte's actual role in the company.
  • A Senator-Judge characterized the SEC witness's prior testimony as confirming that the SEC does not proactively flag cases of officials with corporate involvement.
  • Defense counsel declined to answer what the respondent's role in GenCorp is, arguing it is premature because it is the prosecution's turn and the impeachment court is a passive body that receives evidence at the proper time.
  • The defense counsel argued it would be premature to answer questions on the VP's GenCorp role because it is currently the prosecution's turn, and asked that the question be referred to the presiding officer since the impeachment court is a passive body that should receive evidence at the proper time.
  • The defense stated that the documents the witness will identify and authenticate were not listed or reserved in the prosecution's pre-trial brief and pre-trial order, and reserved the right to object at the proper time.
  • Defense counsel objected that no notice of award had been shown or identified by the witness and thus he could not testify on it.
  • Salns marked as exhibits
  • The presiding officer presented VP Sara's SALNs for 2015, 2016, and 2024 as prosecution exhibits, identified as Exhibit P-2-1-1-g-p-1, P-2-2-1-H-p-1, and P-2-1-1-Q-P-1 respectively.
  • The presiding officer confirmed the court likewise does not have copies of the exhibits as duly marked.
  • Sec witness section 62 business interest definition
  • The witness testified that under Section 62 of the Omnibus Rules, a government official's business interest or financial connection can include capacities other than being a shareholder, such as proprietor, investor, promoter, or partner.
  • Bir records subpoenaed
  • The presiding officer stated that the prosecution has subpoenaed the BIR records of the companies and these may be shown through a witness they will present.
  • Defense questions prosecution document access
  • The defense put on record that prosecutor Luistro earlier said this was the first time they saw the documents, yet they had graphs and presentations prepared on them.
  • The presiding officer stated that whether Mayor Duterte is the brother of the respondent will be proven in due course when the mayor is presented as a witness.
  • Pangilinan subpoena jtc records
  • Senator Judge Pangilinan formally requested, and the Chair took under advisement, the subpoena of corporate documents and records of JTC after both panels' presentations.
  • Sec witness board powers revised corporation code
  • The witness read Section 22 of the Revised Corporation Code, stating that the Board of Directors exercises corporate powers, conducts all business, and controls all properties of the corporation.
  • Sec witness limits of sec records
  • The witness confirmed that the SEC has no access to or information on corporations' stock and transfer books.

Court rulings

  • Sec summary preparation
  • Philgeps system overview
  • Gencorp summary authenticity dispute
  • Prosecution counsel asserted that a reservation was made at the filing of the pre-trial brief and carried over into the Pre-Trial Order issued by the Impeachment Court.
  • The chair confirmed the existence of the prosecution's reservation in the Pre-Trial Order.
  • Gencorp judicial notice dispute
  • The defense counsel disputed that the principle of judicial notice applies to the prosecutor's invocation.
  • The defense objected that the matters cited by the prosecution are not the subject of mandatory judicial notice.
  • Senators question gencorp role
  • A Senator-Judge stated, with agreement from counsel, that a spouse or child could possibly be the person named in business interest filings, so the actual role of the Vice President in GenCorp remains unknown.
  • Defense declines gencorp role questions
  • Defense objects philgeps offer
  • The defense objected to offer number four as conclusions of law and fact, with the rest subject to cross-examination.
  • Gencorp notice of award objection
  • The presiding officer ruled that counsel should refer to the witness's summary rather than unmarked, unseen documents, and the witness confirmed the document is part of the pile, the USB, and his summary.
  • Prosecution cites procurement law
  • The prosecution cited Section 66 of R.A. 12009, asserting it provides that the HOPE or duly authorized representative shall approve or disapprove the BAC's recommendation.
  • The defense counsel objected that Section 62 does not require a government official to declare the nature of the business, arguing the cited language is merely a definition.
  • Gencorp relevance dispute
  • The defense counsel asserted that the court already ruled and made a finding that questions regarding GenCorp appear irrelevant and that the burden is on the prosecution to show relevance, which they have not done.
  • Gencorp relevance objection
  • The defense asserted that the Impeachment Court had already ruled that questions regarding GenCorp appeared irrelevant and that the burden is on the prosecution to show relevance, which they claimed the prosecution had not done.
  • Mayor duterte brotherhood proof deferred
  • Oral argument format motion reconsideration
  • The presiding officer announced that each party will be given 15 minutes for oral argument, after which senator-judges may propound questions before the Court votes on the motion for reconsideration of Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo.
  • Presiding officer allows conflict of interest question
  • The presiding officer ruled to allow the defense counsel's question on the technical definition of 'conflict of interest' despite the prosecution's objection that it was outside the scope of direct examination.
  • Prosecution cites constitutional prohibition
  • The prosecution cited Article 7, Section 13 of the Constitution, prohibiting public officials during their tenure from participating in any business or being financially interested in any contract with the government or its agencies.

Open questions

    Claims updated in this session

    No structured claim developments have been published for this session yet.