Day 24 of Sara Duterte Impeachment Trial: Ex-Sandigan Chief Fires Back at Defense, Ex-Justice Warns of Removal Over Hidden Assets

A Dramatic Turn in the Senate Courtroom

The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte reached a pivotal juncture on Monday, September 14, 2026, as Day 24 of proceedings delivered two explosive developments: a former Sandiganbayan presiding justice publicly rebuked the defense counsel for implying his testimony could be bought, and a retired Supreme Court justice testified that concealing assets is itself an impeachable offense that could warrant removal from office.

The trial, being heard by the Senate acting as an impeachment court, has captivated the nation as it weighs allegations against the Vice President. Monday's session underscored the high-stakes nature of the proceedings, with both sides trading sharp legal blows over the credibility of witnesses and the constitutional standards for conviction.

"My Testimony Is Not for Sale"

The morning session was rocked when a former presiding justice of the Sandiganbayan — the Philippines' anti-graft court — took the witness stand and forcefully rejected what he perceived as an attempt by the defense to undermine his integrity.

According to reports from the Philippine News Agency, the retired magistrate declared, "My testimony is not for sale," after defense counsel appeared to question his impartiality or suggest his account could be influenced. The exchange marked one of the most heated moments of the trial to date, highlighting the defense's strategy of challenging the credibility of key witnesses rather than engaging directly with the substance of the allegations.

The former justice's testimony is believed to center on financial records and alleged irregularities tied to the Vice President's tenure — first as mayor of Davao City and later as Secretary of Education. His adamant refusal to be painted as a purchased witness resonated with observers who noted that the defense's cross-examination tactics may be backfiring by generating sympathy for the prosecution's witnesses.

Concealment of Assets: An Impeachable Offense?

In a separate but equally consequential development, a retired Supreme Court justice testified that hiding assets in a Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) can constitute a ground for impeachment and removal from office.

According to Philstar.com, the ex-justice told the court that deliberate concealment of wealth violates the constitutional requirement of public accountability and falls squarely within the definition of "betrayal of public trust" — one of the enumerated impeachable offenses under the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

This testimony is critical because it provides the Senate with a legal framework for evaluating one of the central charges against Vice President Duterte: allegations that she failed to accurately disclose her wealth in mandatory SALN filings. If the court accepts this interpretation, it could lower the threshold for conviction on that specific article of impeachment, shifting the debate from whether the omissions were unintentional to whether they were part of a pattern of concealment.

Context: The Road to Day 24

The impeachment trial of Sara Duterte — the first ever targeting a sitting Vice President in Philippine history — began in earnest earlier this year following a series of House hearings that produced multiple articles of impeachment. The charges reportedly include:

• Culpable violation of the Constitution, tied to alleged misuse of confidential funds
• Betrayal of public trust, stemming from unexplained wealth and SALN discrepancies
• Graft and corruption, involving questionable transactions during her time at the Department of Education
• Other high crimes, including allegations of threatening public officials

The trial has proceeded methodically, with the prosecution presenting witnesses ranging from former government auditors to law enforcement officials. The defense, meanwhile, has consistently argued that the proceedings are politically motivated and that the evidence fails to meet the constitutional standard for conviction, which requires a two-thirds vote of the 24-member Senate.

Analysis: What Day 24 Signals

Monday's developments carry significant implications for both sides:

For the prosecution, the ex-justice's testimony on SALN concealment provides a clean, constitutionally grounded argument that avoids the complexity of proving direct corruption. By framing hidden assets as an independent impeachable offense, prosecutors can appeal to senators who may be hesitant to convict on more politically charged allegations. The "not for sale" moment also helps rehabilitate the image of the prosecution's witnesses after weeks of aggressive cross-examination.

For the defense, the day was more challenging. The decision to challenge the former Sandiganbayan justice's credibility appears to have generated unfavorable optics, reinforcing the narrative that the defense is more focused on discrediting witnesses than addressing evidence. Moreover, the legal precedent articulated by the retired Supreme Court justice could make it harder for the defense to argue that any SALN inaccuracies were mere clerical errors.

For the Senate, the pressure intensifies. With each passing day, senators are accumulating a record that will ultimately require them to cast a vote that will define their political legacies. The outcome remains uncertain, but the accumulation of expert testimony on constitutional standards suggests the court is taking its role as fact-finder and arbiter of law seriously.

What's Next

The trial continues on Tuesday, with the prosecution expected to call additional witnesses to testify on the Vice President's financial records and the handling of confidential funds. Defense counsel has signaled it will file a motion to strike portions of the ex-justice's testimony, arguing that his legal opinions are inadmissible.

For now, all eyes remain on the Senate session hall — and on the question that has gripped the nation: Will Sara Duterte become the first Philippine Vice President to be removed from office by impeachment? Day 24 brought that question no closer to a definitive answer, but it sharpened the legal and political stakes in ways that will reverberate through the remaining days of the trial.