MANILA — Repeatedly leaving required assets or financial information out of a public official’s Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) could raise questions of possible concealment or dishonesty, retired Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang told the Senate impeachment court on Monday.
But Cabotaje-Tang also stressed an important distinction: an omission alone does not automatically prove unexplained wealth or wrongdoing. The circumstances surrounding the omission—and whether it was an honest mistake or intentional—must still be examined.
Her testimony came as the House prosecution began presenting its evidence under Article II of the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte, which includes allegations involving unexplained wealth, incomplete or inaccurate SALN disclosures, and continued business interests while in public office. Duterte has denied the allegations.
Repeated omissions could raise a bigger question
During questioning by Senator-Judge Raffy Tulfo, Cabotaje-Tang was asked how an asset or amount of money that was not included in a SALN should initially be classified.
Her answer was straightforward: “It’s an omission.”
But the former anti-graft court justice cautioned against immediately treating an omitted item as proof of unexplained wealth.
According to reports on her testimony, the critical question is whether the omission was an honest mistake or an intentional attempt to conceal an asset.
When Tulfo raised the possibility of the same information being omitted repeatedly over several years, Cabotaje-Tang said the surrounding facts would have to be considered in determining whether the pattern pointed to deliberate concealment.
That distinction could become significant as prosecutors move from general legal principles to the actual financial records being presented in Duterte’s impeachment case.
Why SALN disclosures matter
Under Republic Act No. 6713, public officials and employees are required to file a sworn declaration covering their assets, liabilities, net worth, business interests and financial connections. The law specifically includes assets such as real property, personal property, investments, cash, bank deposits, stocks and bonds.
The 1987 Constitution likewise requires public officers to submit a declaration under oath of their assets, liabilities and net worth. For the President, Vice President and other specified constitutional officials, the declaration is subject to public disclosure as provided by law.
The purpose is not simply paperwork.
The Supreme Court has described SALNs as an accountability mechanism intended to help detect undisclosed property and sources of income and to maintain standards of honesty in public service. In one case involving SALN deficiencies, the Court emphasized that assets such as investments and cash in banks are among the information that must be declared.
But an omission is not automatically unexplained wealth
This is where the testimony becomes particularly important.
Cabotaje-Tang did not tell the impeachment court that every SALN omission automatically amounts to unexplained wealth or dishonesty.
Instead, the evidence must establish what happened, why the information was missing, whether the official had an obligation to disclose it, and whether the omission was deliberate.
Supreme Court jurisprudence has similarly recognized that SALN discrepancies can have different consequences depending on the facts, including whether there was bad faith or wrongful intent and whether the official was given an opportunity to explain or correct the discrepancy.
That means the prosecution still has to connect the alleged omissions to the broader evidence.
The prosecution’s next move: documents
Cabotaje-Tang’s testimony was designed primarily to establish the legal and accountability framework for examining Duterte’s wealth rather than to make a final determination about her individual records.
The Senate impeachment court specifically limited her testimony to general principles. Presiding Officer Francis Escudero said her opinions would not bind the court or conclusively resolve the factual issues involving Duterte.
The prosecution is expected to follow that framework with documentary evidence, including SALNs, financial records, property documents and corporate records.
The House prosecution had earlier secured copies of Duterte’s bank and tax records, together with records involving her husband and related companies, describing them as an important component of its evidence for the unexplained-wealth allegation.
Three witnesses were initially lined up for the Article II presentation: Cabotaje-Tang, Office of the Ombudsman Records Division officer-in-charge Karen Batu, and Securities and Exchange Commission official Gerardo Del Rosario. Their roles include explaining public-accountability principles, identifying SALN records and authenticating corporate documents.
A key issue now moves from theory to evidence
The testimony therefore sets up a potentially consequential phase of the impeachment trial.
The question is no longer simply whether something was omitted from a SALN.
The bigger questions are:
What was omitted?
Was it required to be declared?
Was the omission repeated?
Was there a legitimate explanation?
And does the surrounding financial evidence show an innocent mistake—or something more deliberate?
Those questions will ultimately have to be answered through the records and testimony presented before the Senate impeachment court.
For now, Cabotaje-Tang’s testimony establishes only the legal framework. It does not, by itself, establish that Vice President Duterte committed concealment, dishonesty or accumulated unexplained wealth.
That determination remains for the impeachment court to make after considering the evidence and the defense’s responses.
Leave a Reply