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 32

Session recap: Impeachment Trial - Day 32 (2026-10-05, 2026-10-05-impeachment-trial-day-32). Covers source-supported material as of 2026-10-07T11:39+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=zyRATfNfnD4
  • Canonical transcript: https://hearings.pinoysagainstcorruption.com/sessions/2026-10-05-impeachment-trial-day-32
  • Amlc witness explains mandate and aml primer
  • The witness testified that the AMLC is the Philippine Financial Intelligence Unit created under the Anti-Money Laundering Act (RA 9160), with a mandate to ensure the Philippines is not used as a money laundering site.
  • The witness testified that the AMLC's powers include requiring and analyzing CTRs and STRs, conducting investigations, filing bank inquiry or freeze order applications with the Court of Appeals, and filing criminal complaints with the Ombudsman or DOJ and civil forfeiture cases.
  • The witness testified that the AMLC's functions include requiring and receiving covered transaction reports (CTRs) and suspicious transaction reports (STRs), analyzing them, conducting investigations, filing bank inquiries or freeze order petitions before the Court of Appeals, and filing criminal complaints before the Ombudsman or DOJ and civil forfeiture cases.
  • The witness defined money laundering as a crime whereby proceeds from unlawful activity listed under the law are transferred, transacted, moved, or made to appear to have originated from legitimate sources.
  • Flashed document confidentiality flareup
  • Defense counsel asserted that the insinuation that prosecution deliberately concealed portions of a flashed document is farthest from the truth.
  • Respondent's counsel manifested that the prosecution flashed a document bearing a 'strictly confidential' header in a public hearing, potentially violating confidentiality and exposing it to the public.
  • Defense attacks amlc witness authority and capacity
  • The witness confirmed he is not a member of the Anti-Money Laundering Council proper.
  • The defense counsel stated that under Section 7 of the AMLA of 2001, the AMLC is comprised only of the BSP Governor as chairman, the Insurance Commissioner, and the SEC Chairman, which the witness confirmed.
  • The witness confirmed that as Executive Director he is only the head of the AMLC Secretariat, not the head of the AMLC proper, and acts under the control and supervision of the council members.
  • The witness confirmed he was appointed Executive Director only on April 14, 2026, several days before his April 22, 2026 appearance before the House Committee on Justice.
  • Amlc witness explains report mechanics
  • The witness testified that covered transactions are reported via covered transaction reports (CTRs), one report per transaction, and suspicious transactions similarly one report per suspicious circumstance or transaction.
  • The witness testified that suspicious transaction reports may be account- or client-relationship-based regardless of amount, so account-based STRs typically show zero or blank amount, sometimes a minimal amount like 1 peso due to system limitations.
  • The witness testified that account-based suspicious transaction reports are identified in AMLC records by the code STRA, meaning the entire account is reported.
  • The witness testified that AMLC's principal basis for identifying possible money laundering is suspicious circumstances, with examples like large and frequent cash withdrawals provided in reporting guidelines to help covered persons.
  • Amlc witness qualification
  • The witness identified himself as Ronel U. Buenaventura, a lawyer and currently the Executive Director of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC).
  • The witness testified that as Executive Director he heads the AMLC Secretariat, which assists the Council, receives covered and suspicious transaction reports, analyzes them, and ensures covered persons' compliance with the AMLA.
  • The witness testified that he began serving as AMLC Executive Director on April 14, 2026.
  • Defense counsel objected that presenting the slide is processed/interpretive and unfairly creates the impression to the public that Sara Duterte Carpio is involved in malversation of public funds, when the note is based only on news articles and the witness has no personal knowledge.
  • The defense counsel asserted that the 'malversation of public funds and confidential funds' notation is only a note at the bottom portion of the report based on news articles, and that the witness has no personal knowledge of it.
  • The witness confirmed that the slide is a verbatim reproduction of the report received from the covered institution.
  • The witness, as a lawyer, testified that taking out an insurance policy is not illegal for the Vice President or her spouse because only very limited people are prohibited from doing so.
  • The witness testified that, to his knowledge, investing in and earning from time deposits is not illegal.
  • The AMLC witness testified that, to his knowledge, no illegal activity was involved in the matter initially asked about.
  • The witness testified that covered transaction reports are required for bank transactions exceeding 500,000 pesos, single casino cash transactions exceeding 5 million pesos, and real estate broker/developer transactions at 7.5 million.
  • The witness testified that cash transactions above 500,000 pesos are reported as CTRs, except casino transactions at 5 million pesos and real estate broker/developer transactions at 7.5 million.
  • The witness testified that determining suspicious transactions is not purely subjective because AMLC has issued guidelines, including the AMLC Registration and Reporting Guidelines and GO-TRACS, detailing red flags per industry.
  • Defense counsel asserted that the defense received the resubmission of data from the witness only over the weekend and began cross-examining at past 5 p.m., having examined the witness for about an hour.
  • The senator stated that in the Corona trial the court allowed a 10-year baseline of documents to determine when accounts were opened and their amounts, and that this was seconded by the presiding officer.
  • Defense counsel asserted that the witness himself testified in open court that he could not distinguish whether two displayed figures were conversions of the same amount.
  • Prosecution counsel countered that there was no prior testimony from the witness that he could not distinguish the foreign currency from its peso conversion, accusing defense counsel of putting words in the witness's mouth.
  • The presiding officer stated that the displayed amounts are one and the same transaction possibly converted between peso and dollar, not separate transactions to be added, based on documents and an identified exhibit.
  • Defense counsel stated that it was the presiding officer, not the prosecution, who asked the witness the clarifying question about the figures.
  • Amla witness scope clarification
  • The presiding officer stated that witness Attorney Ronel will testify on covered and suspicious transaction reports, not on specific bank records yet.
  • The presiding officer stated that the witness earlier testified, upon questioning by the presiding officer, that he considers the impeachment court a competent court under Section 11 of RA 9160, as his own interpretation as AMLC Executive Director.
  • The presiding officer asserted that the Court cannot dictate the sequence of presentation of the prosecution's witnesses.
  • Amlc witness senate briefing history
  • The witness testified that he had never briefed senators at the Senate in his capacity as Executive Director, but had previously accompanied past Executive Directors during AMLC budget hearings.
  • The witness testified that, to his recollection, neither he nor anyone with him disclosed the 20-year banking history of two senators during Senate briefings.
  • The senator asserted that some senators previously invited AMLC personnel to the Senate and looked at 20 years of banking records of two sitting senators.
  • Defense counsel asserted that the notice given for the presentation of the new witness (Atty. Cabrera) was less than the five-day notice period required for the parties.
  • Defense exhibit accuracy manifestation
  • Defense counsel manifested that the document flashed on screen was not the accurate document being confronted with the witness.
  • Defense counsel manifested that the document bears a 'Confidential – Philippine Senate Use Only' watermark and that flashing it on screen makes it accessible to the public beyond Senate use.
  • The witness confirmed the document before him bears the marking 'confidential for Philippine Senate use only'.
  • Defense counsel manifested that their objection is to the prosecution's use of certain processed visuals (autoptic proference of the document) which could mislead, not to muzzling the witness.
  • The witness confirmed that CTRs and STRs are useful in investigations by the AMLC and that it is the AMLC's mandate to investigate covered and suspicious transactions related to money laundering activities and other AMLA violations.
  • The witness confirmed that the AMLC can investigate motu proprio, proactively, even without a request from law enforcement agencies.
  • The witness testified that the AMLC resubmitted last Friday corrected versions of the CTRs whose amounts appeared as hash symbols due to a column-formatting error in the original submission, as also stated in his letter to the court.
  • The presiding officer stated that the witness testified he was part of the team that prepared the document and is testifying in the belief he is in full compliance with the law, aware of potential liabilities.
  • The witness testified that a CTR with transaction reference number ending 1770 (sought as ending 5277) was reported by BPI Life Assurance Corporation, but the peso amount in the record is hashed/redacted.
  • The witness testified, based on records, that a transaction reported by BPI Life Assurance Corporation, with TXN reference number 201404041 and CTR 5277, had an amount of 20 million pesos.
  • The witness, as AMLC Executive Director, declined to name the analysts who prepared the summary, claiming that exposing them publicly could allow criminals and money launderers to target them.
  • Defense counsel asserted that the term 'flagged' is inapposite because the AMLC's records are covered and suspicious transaction reports under its statutory mandate.
  • The prosecution counsel asserted that the 2019 transaction evidence was being offered to establish a pattern, not a baseline.
  • The presiding officer noted the defense's continuing objection and allowed the witness to answer the question about the 2019 STR.
  • Senator object to defense witness intimidation
  • The presiding officer stated that the chair had advised the witness at the outset about possible legal liabilities he may face given his testimony.
  • Witness order advisory
  • The Presiding Officer stated that the Clerk of Court issued an advisory dated October 1, 2026 on the order of presentation of prosecution witnesses for October 5 to 8.
  • The Presiding Officer stated that the clerk of court issued an advisory dated October 1, 2026 setting the order of prosecution witnesses for October 5 to 8, beginning with the AMLC, then bank, insurance and investment representatives, then a BIR witness.
  • Amlc summary exhibit marking
  • The prosecution formally requested the marking of the AMLC summary as Exhibit P-II-2-7-33-AMLC for the prosecution.
  • Prosecution evidence scope manifestation
  • The prosecution confirmed receipt of the defense's request for stipulation regarding banks, insurance companies, and investment companies, and rejected it, reserving comment for when those witnesses testify.

Court rulings

  • Defense counsel stated that the 'strictly confidential' header phrase omitted from the first page flashed on screen was present on the second page that was flashed, and that there was no attempt to mislead or conceal.
  • The presiding officer ruled that the court had already made a ruling and would note the respondent's manifestation as part of his continuing objection regarding violation of AMLC confidentiality provisions.
  • Bdo str slide objection
  • The private prosecutor confirmed that both malversation of public funds and confidential funds are mentioned in the very same suspicious transaction report.
  • Stipulation investments not illegal
  • The defense counsel stipulated that the Vice President entering into investments, such as buying bonds, is not in itself illegal.
  • Amlc explains ctr reporting thresholds
  • The prosecution stipulated that the provisions read by the Defense Counsel accurately state what the law provides.
  • Amlc summary timing dilatory dispute
  • Prosecution counsel asserted that the prosecution received the AMLC summary on the same day as the defense and reviewed it over the weekend to prepare, and that the defense's requests appeared dilatory.
  • The prosecution stated that it received the AMLC summary on the same day as the defense and reviewed it over the weekend to prepare for the hearing.
  • Corona trial amlc precedent arguments
  • The senator asserted that during the Corona impeachment trial, the impeachment court complied with a Supreme Court ruling and did not look into the chief justice's confidential dollar accounts.
  • The senator asserted that the AMLC Executive Director disclosed dollar transactions without pausing or asking whether the impeachment court would allow it.
  • The senator asserted that the anti-money laundering law contains a provision prohibiting its use for political persecution.
  • Currency figure dispute exchange
  • Cabrera notice dispute
  • Counsel for the respondent stated that the prosecution's manifestation regarding Atty. Alexander Cabrera was received only by email late Saturday and that the accompanying SharePoint file was difficult to access.
  • Defense counsel confirmed they were able to open the attached SharePoint file only after one whole day, i.e., the night before the hearing.
  • Presiding officer slide ruling
  • The Presiding Officer overruled the defense objection, ruling that the visual aid is for demonstration purposes only and that the witness's reading controls.
  • The Presiding Officer overruled the defense objection and stated the court will ensure faithful coverage of what was written in the original document.
  • Aggregate presentation objection ruling
  • Defense counsel manifested that the CTRs do not indicate any aggregate or grand total and asked that the aggregate presentation be taken down.
  • The presiding officer ruled that the aggregate presentation would be allowed to stay, reasoning that it is clear the figures represent unique transactions in one day that are not double-counted.
  • Amla investigative mandate testimony
  • Amlc ctr resubmission formatting error
  • Defense counsel confirmed receipt of the AMLC's email but stated they were still verifying whether the rectified attachments were complete.
  • Amlc witness participation notice ruling
  • The presiding officer ruled that the material presented came from the witness himself, was distributed to the senator judges and parties, and that everyone had adequate notice.
  • Baseline relevance objection ruling
  • The defense objected that prosecution questions on transactions before 2022 were irrelevant because no baseline had been established.
  • The presiding officer ruled that the transactions being asked about were from 2022, within the Vice President's term, and overruled the defense's objection.
  • Bpi life ctr redaction
  • Court resolves cross examination time allocation
  • The Presiding Officer ruled that time spent on objections, arguments, and court rulings counts as part of direct and cross-examination time, and that the court will not unduly shorten the defense's cross-examination but will not allow delays.
  • Defense confrontation rights manifestations
  • The defense manifested that refusing to name the authors of the report violates the respondent's constitutional right to confront her accusers.
  • Defense denies amlc offers
  • Defense counsel stated that the witness, as AMLC Executive Director, has no personal knowledge of the SALN filed by the Vice President or of bank transactions, and denied each of the prosecution's eleven offers.
  • Pattern vs baseline argument
  • Presiding officer amlc origin clarification
  • The Presiding Officer clarified that the report did not originate from the AMLC, which merely mirrored a suspicious transaction report submitted by a covered institution that may rely on news or media reports.
  • The Presiding Officer noted that per Atty. Ronel's earlier statement, such reports may not yet be actionable at the level of the DOJ or the Ombudsman.
  • Senator Judge Tulfo asserted that the presiding officer had already ruled that disclosure of AMLA records is allowed in the impeachment court, and accused the defense of repeatedly intimidating the witness and media.
  • Verdict timetable dispute
  • The Presiding Officer stated that the December 16 verdict claim was not entirely accurate and any timetable statements were based only on the pre-trial order's calendar.
  • Corona dollar account precedent cited
  • Senator Judge Cayetano stated that during the Corona impeachment, the impeachment court did not look into dollar accounts after the Supreme Court ruled they were strictly confidential, but the Executive Director did not pause on dollar transactions nor ask the impeachment court's permission.
  • Defense objects kaley 88 relevance link to vp
  • The defense objected on the basis of relevance, arguing the prosecution had displayed several figures without establishing a link between the transactions of Cali-88 and the Vice President.
  • Defense participation ad cautelam
  • The presiding officer noted that the defense's cross-examination and participation are conducted ad cautelam, which defense counsel confirmed.
  • Hontiveros warns against threatening media coverage
  • Senator Judge Risa Hontiveros stated that it is wrong to threaten the media, directly or indirectly, in performing their essential duty of covering the proceedings, and that no chilling effect should be created on the fourth estate.
  • The prosecutor stated that the prosecution selected only relevant reports and will not be covering all tables or asking samples from all reports.
  • Prosecution recitals were offers of testimony
  • The prosecutor stated that her earlier recitals were offers of testimony, not requests for stipulation, and that the defense's objections were belated and already ruled upon.
  • Prosecution rejects defense bank stipulation request
  • Ruling defense manifestations remain in record
  • The presiding officer ruled that the motion to expunge the defense's manifestations is denied and that the contents remain in the record, subject to objection and cross-examination.
  • Senator requests copy of ruling
  • Senator Judge Pia Cayetano requested a written copy of the ruling and time to study it before the ruling is executed.

Open questions

    Claims updated in this session