MANILA, Philippines — Vice President Sara Duterte’s declared net worth has grown from ₱7.25 million when she entered elective office in 2007 to ₱98.66 million in 2025, putting nearly two decades of her financial disclosures at the center of her impeachment trial.
The increase is substantial: about ₱91.4 million over 18 years, making the latest figure roughly 13.6 times the amount declared in her first Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, or SALN.
House prosecutors argue that the pattern warrants examination alongside Duterte’s income, bank, tax and corporate records as they pursue Article II of the impeachment case, which alleges unexplained wealth, inaccurate SALNs and continued business interests while she was Vice President.
Duterte and her lawyers dispute that interpretation. Her camp maintains that her assets came from legitimate and documented sources and argues that prosecutors cannot simply treat increases in declared net worth or large aggregate bank transactions as proof of wrongdoing.
That distinction is now the central issue before the Senate impeachment court.
From ₱7.25 million to ₱98.66 million
Karen Batu, officer-in-charge of the Office of the Ombudsman’s Records Division, authenticated Duterte’s SALNs during the 25th day of the impeachment trial.
The documents showed the following progression in declared net worth:
2007: ₱7.250 million
2008: ₱18.493 million
2009: ₱18.281 million
2010: ₱16.242 million
2011: ₱14.271 million
2012: ₱22.116 million
2016: ₱34.895 million
2017: ₱44.828 million
2018: ₱49.699 million
2019: ₱55.613 million
2020: ₱56.583 million
2021: ₱65.308 million
2022: ₱71.658 million
2023: ₱77.508 million
2024: ₱88.512 million
2025: ₱98.656 million.
Duterte first entered elective office as Davao City vice mayor in 2007. She later served as mayor before becoming Vice President in 2022.
The Senate impeachment court has allowed prosecutors to present the older SALNs to establish a financial baseline, while stressing that the impeachment charges themselves concern Duterte’s conduct during her current vice-presidential term rather than alleged offenses from her earlier years in local government.
The latest ₱98.66-million figure includes her husband
An important detail in interpreting the headline number is that Duterte’s 2025 SALN was jointly filed with her husband, lawyer Manases “Mans” Carpio.
The couple declared total assets of ₱122.797 million, liabilities of ₱24.142 million, and net worth of ₱98.656 million.
Their assets included approximately ₱81.3 million in real property and ₱41.48 million in personal property. The 2025 filing added a condominium and parking slot in San Juan City and a commercial building in Davao City.
Their declared liabilities also rose sharply, from around ₱9.95 million in 2024 to more than ₱24 million in 2025.
That means the ₱98.66-million figure is a net figure after liabilities, not simply cash accumulated by Duterte from her government salary.
It also means that the impeachment court must examine the couple’s financial picture, lawful income, property acquisitions and business interests rather than treating the increase in isolation.
Prosecutors focused on seven years with no separate cash declaration
One of the prosecution’s main lines of questioning involved Duterte’s treatment of cash.
Batu testified that Duterte’s SALNs showed separately identified cash on hand or bank deposits during earlier years but no separately declared cash on hand or cash in bank from 2019 through 2025.
That became notable because Duterte’s declared net worth continued to rise during the same period.
Prosecutors argue that the declarations should be compared with bank records, tax documents and Duterte’s sources of lawful income.
But Duterte’s defense has offered a different explanation.
Defense spokesperson Michael Poa said the Vice President did have cash and bank deposits but included them collectively under the SALN category labeled “others,” together with other personal property such as jewelry.
Poa said there was no intention to conceal assets and that Duterte maintains that everything she owns was declared.
The SALN form itself became part of the fight
The September 15 hearing produced an important complication for both sides.
During cross-examination, Batu acknowledged that the prescribed SALN forms used over the years did not contain a specific separate line labeled for cash, nor did they provide a column for the acquisition cost of business interests.
She also confirmed that the 2025 rules contained no express prohibition against grouping or “lumping” certain items together.
Prosecutors countered that Republic Act No. 6713 requires public officials to disclose personal property and acquisition costs, arguing that financial holdings should still be properly identified.
The debate therefore is not merely over whether an amount appeared somewhere on a SALN.
It is also over how specifically an asset must be described for a disclosure to be considered complete and truthful.
That legal question has not yet been finally resolved by the impeachment court.
The Ombudsman witness did not rule that Duterte’s SALNs were false
Another significant qualification emerged during Batu’s testimony.
Her office acts as a repository for SALNs, but she said it does not automatically investigate or verify the truthfulness of every item contained in the forms.
Batu testified that her office generally checks whether the proper form was used and whether it is signed, dated and complete in a formal sense. She acknowledged that she did not have personal knowledge of Duterte’s underlying assets and was not in a position to declare the SALNs irregular simply by reading them.
That means her testimony established what Duterte declared, not whether every declaration was accurate, lawful or unlawful.
Those questions will depend on additional evidence.
Business interests are the next major battleground
The SALNs also listed a series of businesses associated with Duterte and Carpio.
The 2024 filing identified 10 business interests, while prosecutors have questioned why Duterte did not separately declare shares of stock despite SALNs listing her or her husband as incorporators or stockholders in various companies.
The defense has challenged the prosecution’s interpretation of what the SALN forms require and has argued that business interests listed in SALNs do not automatically prove prohibited participation in a business.
The Senate impeachment court has ordered an official from the Securities and Exchange Commission to testify on September 21 and 22 because of the volume of corporate documents involved.
That testimony could help clarify ownership structures, shareholdings and corporate interests connected to Duterte and Carpio.
Why prosecutors wanted bank and tax records
The House prosecution has also obtained bank and tax records involving Duterte, her husband and companies linked to them after the impeachment court granted subpoenas for financial documents.
Prosecutors say those records are needed to determine whether the couple’s declared wealth is consistent with lawful income and with what appeared in the SALNs.
Duterte’s lawyers previously objected to broad requests for financial documents as a “fishing expedition.”
The impeachment court nevertheless ruled that much of the requested information was sufficiently relevant and specifically identified to be subpoenaed.
Importantly, the existence of bank transactions does not itself establish unexplained wealth.
Duterte’s defense has stressed that previously reported AMLC figures represented aggregated transactions — including money moving into and out of accounts over multiple years — rather than an account balance or proof that the couple possessed that entire amount at one time.
That distinction will matter when prosecutors begin matching transaction records against income and declared assets.
Why the ₱91.4-million increase alone cannot settle the case
A rapidly rising net worth can prompt scrutiny, but the mathematical increase does not answer the legal question on its own.
To establish that wealth is unexplained, prosecutors are attempting to compare assets and financial activity with lawful sources such as income, property transactions and other documented earnings.
The defense, meanwhile, can challenge the calculations, explain legitimate sources and dispute whether alleged omissions were intentional, material or even required under the forms used at the time.
The Senate impeachment court—not individual lawmakers speaking outside the chamber—will ultimately weigh that evidence.
This is why saying Duterte’s wealth “rose by ₱91.4 million” is a factual statement supported by her SALNs, while saying that the entire increase is “unexplained” or illegally acquired remains an allegation being litigated in the impeachment trial.
Even the 2007 figure has limits
Presiding officer Sen. Francis Escudero has also drawn a boundary around how the early SALNs may be used.
When Duterte’s lawyers objected that records dating back to 2007 predated her vice presidency, Escudero allowed them for the limited purpose of establishing the starting point needed to assess changes in wealth during the impeachable term.
He emphasized that using the old SALNs as a baseline does not expand the Articles of Impeachment to include alleged misconduct before Duterte became Vice President.
That limitation is important because a headline comparing 2007 with 2025 covers almost two decades of personal, family, property and business changes.
The impeachment case must ultimately establish whatever legal significance those changes have during the period covered by the charges.
The next evidence may matter more than the headline number
The ₱7.25-million-to-₱98.66-million comparison is visually striking and easy to understand.
But it may not ultimately be the most important evidence.
The harder questions are more detailed:
What lawful income did Duterte and Carpio receive during the relevant years?
What assets did they acquire or dispose of?
How were those purchases financed?
What exactly is contained under the SALNs’ “others” category?
What business interests did they own after Duterte became Vice President?
Did she merely retain an ownership interest, or did she participate in business activity prohibited by the Constitution?
And do bank, tax, SEC and property records match the annual financial disclosures?
Those are the questions prosecutors still have to prove and the defense still has the opportunity to answer.
A large increase is established. Its legal meaning is not.
After September 15, one part of the record is clear.
Duterte’s submitted SALNs show declared net worth rising from ₱7.250 million in 2007 to ₱98.656 million in 2025.
The Senate has also heard that no cash was separately identified as “cash on hand” or “cash in bank” in several later SALNs, while Duterte’s camp says those funds were included under “others.”
What has not yet been established is the conclusion at the heart of Article II: whether any portion of that wealth was unlawfully acquired, intentionally concealed or improperly declared.
The SALNs have provided the numbers.
The coming bank, tax and corporate evidence will determine what those numbers can actually prove.
Leave a Reply