The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte took a dramatic turn on Sept. 14 after prosecutors presented a surprise witness to explain the legal standards surrounding allegations of unexplained wealth.
The witness, former Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang, appeared before the Senate sitting as an impeachment court as proceedings shifted to Article 2 of the impeachment case, which accuses Duterte of having unexplained wealth.
The defense immediately objected, arguing that it had not been given sufficient materials to prepare for Tang’s testimony.
Defense challenges surprise witness
Defense lawyer Mark Vinluan questioned the decision to present Tang, saying the defense was not provided with documents related to her testimony.
He also argued that Tang’s testimony could improperly involve legal conclusions that should ultimately be determined by the senator-judges themselves.
The defense further pointed out that Tang was not appearing as an amicus curiae, or friend of the court, and that the impeachment court had not formally approved her as an expert in the field.
House prosecutor Chel Diokno defended the witness, saying Tang’s expertise in public accountability laws would help explain the legal principles surrounding hidden, ill-gotten and unexplained wealth.
The court ultimately allowed Tang to testify but made clear that her opinions would not be binding or conclusive.
Senate President Francis Escudero, who is presiding over the impeachment proceedings, also placed the defense’s continuing objection on record.
Former Sandiganbayan chief explains unexplained wealth
Tang spent roughly 44 years in government service.
She began her career as a judicial assistant at the Supreme Court and later worked for 31 years at the Office of the Solicitor General before becoming an associate justice of the Sandiganbayan.
She served as the anti-graft court’s presiding justice from 2013 to 2024.
During questioning, Tang explained the differences between hidden, unexplained and ill-gotten wealth.
She said the wealth of a public official may become questionable when assets acquired during incumbency are grossly disproportionate to the official’s salary, lawful income and income from legitimately acquired property.
She also explained that unexplained wealth can extend to properties and assets belonging to a public official’s spouse and children below 18.
Financial declarations, including statements of assets, liabilities and net worth, or SALNs, can be examined alongside income tax returns and a public official’s lifestyle to determine whether declared wealth is consistent with legitimate income.
Presumption can still be rebutted
Tang stressed that a finding of disproportionate wealth does not automatically establish illegal acquisition.
If property is shown to be grossly disproportionate to an official’s lawful income and assets, a presumption of unlawful acquisition may arise.
However, that presumption can be rebutted if the official can satisfactorily explain how the property was legally acquired.
The distinction is important in Duterte’s impeachment trial because the prosecution is attempting to establish a legal framework through which the Senate can assess financial records presented in the case.
SALNs become central to prosecution’s case
During the House proceedings on the impeachment complaints, the Office of the Ombudsman submitted Duterte’s SALNs covering several periods of her public service.
The records presented in the impeachment proceedings show Duterte’s declared net worth increasing from about P7.25 million in 2007 to P88.51 million in 2024.
Her declared net worth reached P18.49 million in 2008, P22.12 million in 2012, P34.90 million in 2016, P44.83 million in 2017 and P71.66 million in 2022.
The prosecution also highlighted changes in Duterte and her husband’s declarations of cash on hand and in banks.
The SALNs listed cash holdings of P2 million in 2007, P3.66 million in 2010 and P4.32 million in 2012. Later declarations showed cash amounts through 2018, but subsequent SALNs did not report cash on hand or bank deposits.
The prosecution has pointed to the disappearance of those cash declarations as an issue requiring scrutiny.
The records also showed periods when the couple reported identical amounts of real assets and relatively stable personal assets.
Business interests also under scrutiny
Tang also discussed restrictions under Republic Act 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
She noted that the law places stricter restrictions on the President and Vice President, including provisions concerning ownership or participation in businesses.
The rationale, she explained, is that the country’s two highest officials wield substantial government power, creating a greater potential for abuse of office.
The prosecution is expected to use these legal principles as it presents its case on whether Duterte’s financial circumstances meet the standards required to establish unexplained wealth.
Trial enters another critical phase
The testimony marks a significant stage in the impeachment proceedings because Article 2 directly places Duterte’s wealth and financial disclosures under examination.
The prosecution’s presentation of a former anti-graft court chief also signals an effort to give the Senate impeachment court a legal framework for evaluating the financial records already placed before it.
For the defense, however, the circumstances surrounding Tang’s late presentation remain a major point of contention.
As the trial continues, the senator-judges will ultimately have to determine whether the evidence presented by the prosecution establishes an impeachable offense or whether Duterte can satisfactorily account for the wealth and financial declarations being questioned.
Leave a Reply