Sara Duterte impeachment trial: All you need to know

Vice President Sara Duterte, the country’s second-highest official, is set to face trial before the Senate sitting as an impeachment court, more than a year after the House of Representatives first impeached her.

At a glance

The first Philippine official to be impeached twice, Duterte will stand trial beginning July 6.

Duterte faces four Articles of Impeachment. She was impeached by the House of Representatives on May 11 for the second time. The Senate has approved 92 trial days for the proceedings.

The Articles of Impeachment accuse Duterte of the following:

Article I: Alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds from the Office of the Vice President, or P500 million, and the Department of Education, or DepEd, amounting to P112.5 million.

Article II: Alleged unexplained wealth, failure to truthfully disclose assets in Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, or SALNs, from 2022 to 2024, and failure to divest and willful continued business interests.

Article III: Alleged bribery and procurement irregularities involving DepEd officials.

Article IV: Alleged assassination threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., first lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.

Under the Constitution, conviction requires the vote of at least two-thirds of all senator-judges.

If convicted, Duterte faces possible removal from office and perpetual disqualification from holding any public office.

Timeline: How we got here

In July 2023, the Commission on Audit, or COA, flagged the Office of the Vice President’s use of P125 million in confidential funds, which was fully spent within 11 days in late 2022.

In December 2024, three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte.

In February 2025, Duterte was impeached for the first time through the fast-track method, with 215 lawmakers voting to impeach her.

In June 2025, the Senate convened as an impeachment court, with Sen. Chiz Escudero as the presiding officer.

In July 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously declared the impeachment complaint against Duterte unconstitutional, stopping the Senate trial.

The court ruled that the House violated the Constitution’s one-year bar rule by acting on multiple impeachment complaints filed within a year, making the Articles of Impeachment invalid.

In August 2025, the Senate voted to archive the impeachment case against Duterte.

New year, new complaints

From January to February 2026, four new impeachment complaints against Duterte were filed. They cited grounds for impeachment almost similar to the three filed a year earlier, but this time included the affidavit of Ramil Madriaga, Duterte’s alleged former aide who identified himself as her bagman.

In February 2026, the House transmitted the Duterte complaints to the House committee on justice.

In March 2026, the two remaining impeachment complaints against Duterte were found sufficient in substance and sufficient in grounds.

In April 2026, the House justice committee conducted clarificatory hearings and invited several resource speakers. The panel obtained Anti-Money Laundering Council reports showing P6.7 billion worth of covered and suspicious transactions, a sealed Bureau of Internal Revenue box, and Duterte’s SALNs that declared no cash from 2019 to 2024, among other records and testimonies presented before the panel.

The House panel later found probable cause to impeach Duterte.

On May 11, 2026, the House of Representatives impeached Duterte for a second time, with 257 lawmakers approving the Articles of Impeachment for Senate trial.

On May 14, 2026, the House of Representatives formally transmitted the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte to the Senate, paving the way for her impeachment trial.

On May 18, 2026, the Senate formally convened as an impeachment court and senator-judges took their oaths, marking the start of impeachment proceedings against Duterte before the trial proper.

On June 25, 2026, the Senate’s pretrial conference wrapped up on its fifth day after a three-day extension due to the volume of documents from both the prosecution and defense panels that had to be manually premarked.

The process was intended to streamline the trial proper by eliminating the need to mark documents during the proceedings.

What is happening now

The Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, is expected to hear testimony from dozens of witnesses from both the prosecution panel and the defense team over the coming months before senator-judges vote on whether to convict or acquit Duterte.

Starting Monday, the Senate will convene as an impeachment court three times a week from 2 p.m. onward.

Although the Articles of Impeachment are numbered I to IV, the prosecution will not present them in numerical order.

Instead, the House prosecution panel will begin with Article IV, which covers allegations involving Duterte’s assassination plot, grave threats against Marcos, Araneta-Marcos and Romualdez, and inciting sedition against the government.

The prosecution will then move to Article I, which covers the alleged misuse and misappropriation of confidential funds, followed by Article III on alleged bribery and procurement irregularities at DepEd.

It will end with Article II, which deals with alleged unexplained wealth, false SALNs and continued business interests.

The Senate impeachment court adopted this order in its Pre-Trial Order.

Key issues to watch out for during the impeachment trial

The BIR box

One of the first procedural disputes before the Senate impeachment court involves the so-called “BIR Green Box,” which purportedly contains the tax records of Duterte, her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, and their companies.

The Bureau of Internal Revenue, or BIR, submitted the box during the House impeachment proceedings in response to a subpoena. However, lawmakers did not open it after a motion to inspect its contents failed.

Instead, the House transmitted the sealed box to the Senate together with the Articles of Impeachment.

During pretrial proceedings, the prosecution panel filed a manifestation asking that the box be opened and premarked. Duterte’s defense objected to marking the box as evidence and requested time to reply to the prosecution’s manifestation.

After the pretrial ended, the box remained sealed and unmarked. The consensus was to let the impeachment court decide what to do with it.

Just days before the trial, senator-judges, in a caucus, said they had no business safekeeping the unopened box. They ordered its return to the BIR, saying the Senate should not keep evidence that had not been formally offered or admitted.

The box is among the pieces of evidence that the prosecution seeks to present in relation to Article II of the Articles of Impeachment, which accuses Duterte of amassing unexplained wealth disproportionate to her lawful income and failing to truthfully disclose her assets, liabilities and net worth.

GRAPHIC: Ed Lustan/INQUIRER.net

Conviction threshold

Under Article XI, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution, conviction of an impeached official requires the vote of two-thirds of all members of the Senate.

With all 24 senators sitting as judges, this means 16 votes are needed for conviction.

If fewer than 16 senator-judges vote to convict, Duterte will be acquitted and remain in office.

However, questions have emerged over whether the threshold could change if some senator-judges become unable to participate, following the detention of Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, the continued absence of Sen. Ronald dela Rosa as he remains in hiding over an International Criminal Court arrest warrant, and the possible arrest of Sen. Rodante Marcoleta after the Ombudsman filed a plunder case against him.

House lead prosecutor Rep. Gerville Luistro has floated applying the Avelino v. Cuenco doctrine, which was used during one of the Senate’s leadership shake-ups. This could reduce the required votes if certain senators are no longer within the Senate’s coercive power.

Before becoming Senate president, Sherwin Gatchalian said the Avelino doctrine may justify the Senate’s quorum during legislative sessions but does not necessarily apply to the impeachment court, maintaining that 16 votes are still needed to convict.

A Senate minority bloc led by Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano, who was ousted in the June 3 shake-up, has asked the Supreme Court to clarify the validity of the June 3 Senate session and interpret how the constitutional phrase “all its members” should be applied in computing quorum and voting requirements.

Choosing the presiding officer

Who presides over the impeachment trial is also being closely watched.

During the disputed June 3 special session, the 12-member quorum amended the Senate Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials, stating that the Senate president will preside over the trial unless the majority elects another senator-judge to preside.

Following his election as Senate president, Gatchalian maintained that he would serve as the presiding officer for Duterte’s impeachment trial.

Other senators, however, have said Escudero or Sen. Kiko Pangilinan could preside over the trial, citing their legal backgrounds.

While the Senate impeachment court follows rules similar to those in judicial proceedings, constitutional law experts say impeachment is ultimately a political accountability process meant to determine whether a public official remains fit to hold office.

They said senator-judges must be wary of overly judicializing the process.

Unlike ordinary court cases, they said, the proceedings should focus on “truth-telling” and allowing the public to hear the facts rather than becoming dominated by technical legal arguments.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

Read Next