Sara Duterte Impeachment Trial — August 10, 2026

 

Sara Duterte Impeachment Trial Paused on August 10 as Senate Shifts to Work-from-Home Setup

The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte did not proceed on Monday, August 10, 2026. The Senate suspended its plenary session and canceled the scheduled impeachment proceedings because of forecast heavy rains in Luzon and the resulting work-from-home arrangement for government offices in Metro Manila.

No witness testimony or ruling on August 10

Because the hearing was canceled, the Senate impeachment court did not hear testimony, examine exhibits, or issue a ruling in Duterte’s case that day. The postponement moved the trial schedule back by one day.

Senate President Win Gatchalian said the trial would resume on Tuesday, August 11. The next stage was expected to focus on the audit and disbursement of ₱612.5 million in confidential funds allegedly received by the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education during Duterte’s tenure.

What the next hearing was expected to cover

The prosecution had lined up Commission on Audit supervising auditor Xylene Mae del Campo to continue testimony on portions of the confidential-fund audit not covered by fellow COA auditor Roderick Wamil.

Other witnesses identified for the August 10–12 trial dates included House official Marivic Pareja, former OVP special disbursing officer Gina Acosta, and former DepEd special disbursing officer Eduard Fajarda. Acosta and Fajarda were expected to face questions about the handling and disbursement of ₱500 million in OVP confidential funds and ₱112.5 million allocated to DepEd.

The prosecution’s presentation had moved beyond the release and withdrawal of the funds. It was preparing to examine how the funds were audited, liquidated, documented, and disbursed. Duterte’s defense has disputed the prosecution’s interpretation of the records and challenged the allegations in the impeachment case.

A delay caused by weather, not a decision on the case

The August 10 cancellation was administrative and weather-related. It did not dismiss the impeachment complaint, resolve the allegations, or indicate how the senator-judges would vote. The case remained pending before the Senate impeachment court, with the proceedings set to continue after the weather-related suspension.

The postponement also came as the prosecution and defense were disputing how to compare and authenticate documentary exhibits. That procedural disagreement became a point of tension when the trial resumed, with the prosecution accusing the defense of delaying the review of documents and the defense arguing that the court—not the parties—should ultimately determine the authenticity and admissibility of the exhibits.