Sara Duterte Opens Impeachment Defence as Property Disclosure Dispute Begins

MANILA, November 9, 2026 — The Sara Duterte impeachment trial moved into the defence phase in the Philippine Senate on Monday, with testimony from Davao City Assessor Jaime Adalin over property records immediately drawing objections from House prosecutors. The dispute centred on whether a land title linked to Duterte’s family was the same property disclosed in her annual asset declarations, a question that could become important to the remaining charge of unexplained wealth.

The hearing marked the start of the defence case after prosecutors withdrew three of the four articles of impeachment, leaving Article II as the principal charge before the Senate. The case is still at the evidence stage. The testimony and objections heard on Monday do not establish whether Duterte violated disclosure rules, and the Senate impeachment court has not reached a verdict.

Defence counsel presented Adalin, the Davao City assessor, to address a property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 146-20240110775. The defence said the witness would show that the property had been disclosed in Duterte’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, commonly known as SALNs. Those declarations are required of public officials and are intended to make their financial interests and assets subject to public scrutiny.

House prosecution lawyer Jay Tolosa objected to the defence’s claim that Adalin could prove the title and the property listed in the SALN were one and the same. The prosecution was prepared to accept that the witness held the position of city assessor and had personal knowledge of the tax declaration associated with the title. It disputed whether that knowledge was enough to establish the identity of the property or resolve differences between the documents.

The land in question is in Matina, Davao City, and was purchased by Duterte’s husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, for PHP6 million in July 2024, according to the Philippine News Agency. Prosecutors say the property was not declared in the Vice-President’s SALNs. The defence disputes that allegation. The central issue is not simply whether a tax declaration exists, but whether the details in that document correspond to the asset disclosed in the official statement.

The prosecution also referred to a separate lot in the Island Garden City of Samal, which Carpio bought for PHP3.4 million in March 2018. It has argued that the two properties were not properly reflected in the declarations presented to the court. Those claims remain allegations advanced by prosecutors; the defence has an opportunity to challenge the documents, call witnesses and explain how the assets were recorded.

Philstar reported that senators also questioned Adalin about a January 2026 trip to China with Davao officials. The questioning added another line of scrutiny to the witness’s recollection of events and his familiarity with the records being discussed. The trial’s proceedings are being carried through the Senate impeachment court, where individual pieces of testimony can be challenged by the opposing side before the senators decide what weight to give them.

The prosecution’s wider case relies on financial documents and testimony about assets that it says cannot be reconciled with Duterte’s declared income and SALNs. Reuters reported that a prosecution financial analyst had identified more than PHP800 million in assets considered unexplained by the panel. That figure is an allegation based on the prosecution’s analysis, not a finding by the impeachment court. The defence is expected to contest the calculations, the source documents and the assumptions used to compare assets with declared income.

The withdrawal of three articles has narrowed the case but has not ended it. Philstar reported that the Senate trial has entered its 16th week, with Article II remaining after the House prosecution panel dropped the other charges. The surviving article focuses on allegations that Duterte accumulated unexplained wealth and failed to make complete or accurate declarations of assets. It is therefore likely to turn on documentary evidence, the credibility of witnesses and the interpretation of financial records.

A SALN is not a criminal verdict in itself. It is a formal disclosure that allows public officials’ assets, liabilities and net worth to be examined. A discrepancy between a property record and a SALN can raise questions, but the court must still determine whether the documents refer to the same asset, whether the omission was legally material, what the official knew and whether the evidence supports the charge. The prosecution and defence are presenting competing interpretations of those records.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution gives the Senate the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases. The Senate has 24 members, and conviction requires the concurrence of two-thirds of all senators, or 16 votes. A conviction can remove an official from office and disqualify that person from holding public office under the Republic. The Constitution also makes clear that an impeachment judgment does not prevent separate prosecution under ordinary law.

That threshold gives the defence a clear political and legal objective: prevent the prosecution from securing the votes required for conviction. It does not mean that senators must agree with every aspect of Duterte’s defence to acquit her. The court must decide whether the evidence meets the constitutional standard for impeachment, while individual senators will also be weighing the credibility of the witnesses and the public consequences of their vote.

Duterte has denied wrongdoing and described the impeachment effort as politically motivated. Her legal team has argued that the prosecution’s allegations are false and that the property records can be reconciled with the declarations. The House panel, for its part, says the documents show assets that were not properly disclosed. Neither side’s position has been adopted as a final finding by the Senate.

The proceedings carry political weight because Duterte remains a prominent national figure and has been discussed as a possible contender in the next presidential election. Her relationship with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and his allies has deteriorated since their earlier political partnership, and the impeachment case has become part of a wider struggle over power, accountability and the direction of the administration.

For the government, the case is also a test of the credibility of the country’s accountability institutions. SALN requirements are intended to make public officials’ finances more transparent, but the value of those rules depends on consistent enforcement and evidence that can withstand scrutiny. If property records are incomplete or difficult to match, the case may expose weaknesses in the way local land records and national asset declarations are maintained. If the prosecution cannot establish the alleged discrepancies, the defence will argue that the case has not met its burden.

The trial is expected to continue with additional defence witnesses. Reuters reported that Duterte’s lawyers planned to call about 24 witnesses, although the final schedule will depend on the court’s rulings and the pace of testimony. The next stages will include further questioning of Adalin, possible documentary evidence and testimony intended to answer the prosecution’s financial analysis. The court may also have to rule on the admissibility and relevance of particular records.

Monday’s hearing therefore established the first contested point of the defence rather than resolving the case. The prosecution accepted that Adalin could speak to his official role and certain tax records, but challenged his ability to link those records to the property listed in Duterte’s SALN. That distinction is likely to shape the next hearings: the Senate must decide whether the evidence proves the property was properly disclosed, not merely whether a related document exists.

As the proceedings continue, the most important developments will be the court’s treatment of the property documents, the defence’s explanation of the alleged PHP800-million discrepancy and the number of senators persuaded by each side’s evidence. Until those questions are tested, the allegations should not be treated as established fact. The Senate impeachment court remains responsible for deciding whether the remaining charge is proved under the Constitution.