Sara Duterte Impeachment Trial — September 8, 2026

 

Sara Duterte Impeachment Trial on September 8, 2026: Article I Winds Down as Prosecution Signals Duterte Testimony

The Senate impeachment court held a largely procedural session on Tuesday, September 8, 2026. Instead of hearing the three witnesses scheduled for the day, the House prosecution panel waived those witnesses and said it would also drop the 15 remaining names on its Article I witness list.

The prosecution said it believed its presentation on the alleged misuse, misappropriation, and irregular liquidation of ₱612.5 million in confidential funds was already supported by 12 witnesses and thousands of documents. It then signaled that it may seek Vice President Sara Duterte’s testimony before the trial concludes. 

Prosecution waives its remaining Article I witnesses

Private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan told the court that the prosecution would no longer present the 15 witnesses still listed for Article I. The panel had listed 27 Article I witnesses in its pretrial brief, presented 10 in person, and relied on stipulations for two others.

The prosecution’s position was that the evidence already presented was enough to establish its case concerning the confidential funds. This was the prosecution’s assessment of its evidence—not a ruling by the impeachment court that the allegations had been proven.

The three witnesses subpoenaed for September 8 were also not called. As a result, Day 23 did not include new witness testimony or cross-examination.

Prosecution signals it may call Duterte

After waiving the remaining witnesses, the prosecution indicated that it would eventually seek to make Duterte appear before the court. The panel argued that the evidence and the chain of responsibility ultimately point to the vice president as the person accountable for the funds.

Lead defense counsel Sheila Sison challenged that position, arguing that the Constitution prevents the prosecution from compelling Duterte to testify. She said the defense would submit a written comment if the prosecution filed a formal motion to subpoena her.

Presiding officer Chiz Escudero noted that former Chief Justice Renato Corona testified during the 2012 impeachment trial. Sison responded that Corona had appeared voluntarily, leaving open the legal difference between a voluntary appearance and compelled testimony.

Escudero also directed both sides not to formally rest Article I yet. The court kept the article open while it considered whether to summon Col. Raymund Dante Lachica and Col. Dennis Nolasco itself. Both men are associated with the OVP and DepEd confidential-fund operations and are listed as common witnesses in the pretrial order.

The court turns toward Article II and unexplained wealth

The prosecution served the defense with 104 requests for admission concerning Duterte’s bank accounts and other records connected to Article II, which deals with the allegation of unexplained wealth.

Under the procedure explained in court, facts admitted by the defense would no longer need to be established through testimony. Matters could also be treated as admitted if the defense failed to submit a sworn response within the required period.

Defense counsel Michael Poa asked for 15 days to answer the requests instead of the seven days proposed by the prosecution. Escudero granted the 15-day period and described it as non-extendable. He also warned that an unreasonable blanket denial could be considered by the court.

The deadline did not suspend the trial. The court was preparing to begin the next article while the defense worked on its response.

September 9 session canceled for exhibit marking

Escudero canceled the following day’s trial session so the prosecution and defense could mark exhibits. Prosecutor Chel Diokno said more than 1,800 bank and insurance records obtained through subpoenas still needed to be marked before the court could fully take up Article II.

Poa had asked for two weeks to study the documents before Article II began, offering to surrender an equivalent number of days from the defense presentation. Escudero denied the request, explaining that the limitation was the court’s calendar rather than an accusation that the defense was deliberately delaying the proceedings.

The prosecution was ordered to submit its Article II witness list under the five-day notice rule, with trial scheduled to resume the following Monday.

Senators begin addressing the conviction threshold

Another major issue was the number of senators who should be counted in determining the two-thirds vote required for conviction.

Sen. Erwin Tulfo appealed Escudero’s initial ruling that the threshold should be based on the full 24-member Senate, which would require 16 votes. Tulfo questioned how the phrase “all members of the Senate” should apply when some senators are outside the chamber’s immediate reach.

The issue involved four senators in different circumstances: Loren Legarda was on medical leave and abroad; Bato dela Rosa had not been attending while wanted under an International Criminal Court arrest warrant; and Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta were detained in connection with separate plunder cases.

Escudero set a process for resolving the question. The court planned to hear opinions from amici curiae, or friends of the court, on September 16, followed by oral arguments from the prosecution and defense on September 23 and a vote on the same day.

The scheduling of those arguments was procedural. It did not decide the proper threshold or determine whether Duterte would be convicted.

What Day 23 added to the case

September 8 marked the transition from the confidential-funds evidence under Article I to preparations for the unexplained-wealth allegations under Article II. The prosecution chose to shorten its witness presentation, while the defense gained additional time to answer 104 requests for admission and prepare for a large volume of financial records.

The prosecution’s statement that it may call Duterte was also significant, but no motion compelling her testimony had yet been resolved. Article I remained open while the court considered whether to summon Lachica or Nolasco, and no ruling was issued on the truth of the allegations.

There was no conviction, acquittal, dismissal, or final ruling on September 8, 2026. The trial remained ongoing, with the next substantive phase expected to examine Duterte’s financial records and the court still set to address the conviction-vote threshold.