MANILA, Philippines — President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) unexpectedly became part of the discussion during Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, prompting questions over why the President’s financial declaration was brought into proceedings focused on Duterte.
Duterte’s defense lawyer Michael Poa clarified that the move was not intended to politically target Marcos, saying the document was presented to challenge or test the prosecution’s argument concerning the constitutional restrictions on government officials engaging in business.
The development came as the Senate impeachment court shifted to Article II of Duterte’s impeachment case, which centers on allegations involving unexplained wealth, SALN declarations and her alleged continued business interests while serving as vice president.
According to Poa, the reference to Marcos’ SALN was meant to examine the legal argument being advanced by the prosecution—not to initiate a separate case against the President.
The distinction is significant because the impeachment proceedings are legally centered on allegations against Duterte. The presentation of Marcos’ SALN does not, by itself, establish wrongdoing by the President.
WHY MARCOS’ SALN ENTERED THE TRIAL
The issue emerged as prosecutors presented evidence concerning whether Duterte violated constitutional restrictions on participating in business while holding public office.
Former Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang appeared as a witness and discussed the constitutional provisions governing public officials and business interests. BusinessMirror reported that prosecutors were examining whether a public official could be considered to be participating in a business even when ownership or control may not appear directly under the official’s name.
The prosecution’s case under Article II alleges that Duterte accumulated wealth disproportionate to her lawful income, failed to fully disclose assets in her SALNs and continued business interests while serving as vice president.
The House prosecution has also sought testimony and records from government agencies, including the Ombudsman and Securities and Exchange Commission, to establish its claims.
Poa’s explanation therefore places the Marcos SALN controversy within a broader legal argument: if prosecutors are using standards concerning business participation and public officials, the defense can question how those standards are applied.
THE BIGGER ISSUE: DUTERTE’S SALN AND BUSINESS INTERESTS
Article II is one of four impeachment articles being tried against Duterte.
The case alleges, among other things, that Duterte failed to fully and truthfully disclose assets and interests in her SALNs and that she continued business interests while serving as vice president. GMA News’ impeachment timeline identifies these allegations as central components of Article II.
The prosecution has also pointed to financial records as part of its effort to establish whether Duterte’s wealth was consistent with her lawful income.
Earlier proceedings featured discussion of approximately P6.7 billion in covered and suspicious bank transactions associated with Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio. The defense has disputed the prosecution’s interpretation of these records.
Importantly, allegations presented during an impeachment trial remain allegations unless ultimately established by the impeachment court.
WHY THE MARCOS-DUTERTE POLITICAL CONFLICT MATTERS
The controversy carries added political weight because the impeachment case comes amid the dramatic collapse of the once-powerful Marcos-Duterte alliance.
Marcos and Sara Duterte ran together in the 2022 elections, but their political relationship later deteriorated sharply. Duterte now faces an impeachment case containing allegations involving confidential funds, wealth and SALNs, bribery, and alleged threats against Marcos and other officials.
The impeachment trial formally began in the Senate in July, with the four articles being contested by Duterte’s defense. GMA News reported that the defense has characterized the impeachment effort as politically motivated, while prosecutors have framed it as an accountability process.
The political stakes became even higher after Duterte posted bail earlier this month following an arrest order over three counts of grave threats connected to her 2024 remarks involving Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and then-House Speaker Martin Romualdez. Reuters reported that Duterte denied making criminal threats and described the legal action as harassment.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
The immediate battle is now over Article II and the evidence surrounding Duterte’s wealth, SALNs and alleged business interests.
The prosecution is expected to continue presenting documentary and testimonial evidence, while Duterte’s lawyers will challenge the interpretation, relevance and legal significance of that evidence.
For Marcos, meanwhile, the appearance of his SALN in the proceedings does not mean that he is being impeached or formally accused in Duterte’s case.
For Duterte’s defense, however, the episode provides another opportunity to challenge what it considers an overly broad interpretation of the rules governing public officials and business interests.
And with the impeachment trial now moving deeper into Duterte’s financial records, the biggest question may no longer be why Marcos’ SALN was shown—but what the Senate impeachment court ultimately concludes about the evidence being presented against the vice president.
The political battle between the Marcos and Duterte camps is therefore far from over—and the financial evidence now being placed before the Senate could become one of the most closely watched parts of the entire impeachment trial.
Leave a Reply