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 29

Session recap: Impeachment Trial - Day 29 (2026-09-23, 2026-09-23-impeachment-trial-day-29). Covers source-supported material as of 2026-09-29T11:10+08:00, not a complete account.

Last updated:

ShareFacebookX
Transcript status: Machine-cleanedGo 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=-gukXtujXus
  • Canonical transcript: https://hearings.pinoysagainstcorruption.com/sessions/2026-09-23-impeachment-trial-day-29
  • The senator judge asserted that the RTC or Sandiganbayan can, with proper coordination, order the transfer of a Senate-held witness to their custody, and that the Senate cannot compel but only request.

Court rulings

  • Administrative record and scheduling
  • The Chair stated it instructed the Clerk of Court to make the TSN of the previous day's and today's proceedings available by the next morning and to provide certified true copies to anyone seeking them.
  • The Presiding Officer directed that senator-judges may insert their explanations of vote into the record and that the Clerk of Court spread the entirety of the explanations of votes into the journal.
  • The presiding officer stated that the Clerk of Court was instructed to make the TSN of both days' proceedings available as early as tomorrow morning, with certified true copies available.
  • The Secretariat requested that explanations of vote be submitted by 4 p.m. so that the certified true copy of the TSN could be available by 10 a.m. the next day.
  • Detained senator production dispute
  • The senator judge asserted that if full constitutional meaning is given to the Senate's 24 members, the Senate can compel the Sandiganbayan.
  • Senator apology over detained colleagues remarks
  • The senator-judge clarified that he said his colleagues were 'charged with' plunder, not that they were convicted plunderers, and apologized for any hurt caused.
  • The senator-judge claimed his earlier statements were not attacks on fellow senators but confrontations of the reality that some senators are physically or legally unable to participate in the trial.
  • Senator Mark Villar asserted that colleagues facing cases are not guilty yet and that words used in the trial can adversely affect them.
  • Threshold ruling history recap
  • The presiding officer stated that the original ruling citing the number 16 was made on July 6 as part of the chair's opening statement after being elected presiding officer, not in response to a motion or question.
  • The presiding officer stated that on July 6 Senator Judge Alan Peter Cayetano and on July 7 Senator Judge Lacson asked whether the statement was a ruling of the chair, and the chair affirmed it was a ruling of the chair and of the court since nobody objected or appealed.
  • The senator judge stated that the presiding officer stated the threshold ruling early so that anyone disagreeing could bring it before the Supreme Court at the soonest possible time, to avoid a final verdict vote that would not end the divisiveness.
  • Sandiganbayan attendance request idea
  • Senator Padilla asserted that Chief Justice Puno had stated the Senate could appeal to the Sandiganbayan to allow detained senators to attend the trial.
  • Senator Padilla asserted that members of the minority are currently incarcerated and that the rules permitted requesting the Sandiganbayan to allow them to attend.
  • Amendment taken under advisement
  • The Presiding Officer stated that the amendment to Senator Sotto's motion was taken under advisement and that before the vote on Senator Tulfo's appeal, the chair will explain exactly what the vote means.
  • Cayetano abstention manifestation
  • Senator Alan Cayetano stated that he and some colleagues will not participate in voting on the issue because they believe it is not a matter the court can vote on, and asked the Presiding Officer to clarify whether they should simply abstain or appeal first.
  • Electronic participation suggestion
  • The senator judge claimed that if the impeachment rules were amended to allow electronic participation, many of the current arguments would go away.
  • Roll call quorum
  • The presiding officer declared the presence of a quorum with 20 senators present after the roll call.

Open questions

    Claims updated in this session

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