Sara Duterte trial recap, Sept. 14: Law lecture on unexplained wealth, politics on cross

MANILA, Philippines — The impeachment court began hearing Article II on Vice President Sara Duterte's alleged unexplained wealth on Monday, September 14, with a retired Sandiganbayan presiding justice breaking down the laws that bar public officials from holding wealth that's unaccounted for.

Prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno (Akbayan) offered the testimony of retired Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang to give the court, and the public, a framework for understanding the bank, tax and corporate records the prosecution will present in the coming days. 

Day 24 of the trial marks the start of the prosecution's third of four articles in its order of presentation, with only Article III on alleged bribery left after this. 

The panel has 12 trial days and about 14 witnesses for Article II, which covers three accusations: that Duterte amassed wealth disproportionate to her lawful income, that she failed to truthfully declare it in her SALNs from 2022 to 2024, and that she did not divest from business interests upon assuming the vice presidency.

Here are the three highlights from today's proceedings.

1. 'Are you a Kakampink?' Defense implies ex-Sandiganbayan justice is friend to prosecution 

Defense counsel Mark Vinluan moved to exclude Cabotaje-Tang as a surprise witness, saying she is not in the pre-trial order, not named in the Articles of Impeachment, and that the defense was not given materials related to her testimony in advance — the third time, he said, the prosecution has done so.  

Presiding officer Sen. Chiz Escudero sided with the prosecution and denied the motion. He ruled that the pre-trial order allows the prosecution to present additional witnesses, among others. 

On cross-examination, Vinluan spent most of his time implying Cabotaje-Tang lacked the knowledge and objectivity to educate the court on the legal framework of Article II. One of the questions he pursued was related to whether she was "disappointed" at never being appointed to the Supreme Court after four tries under Duterte's father, former president Rodrigo Duterte.

Vinluan also outright asked Cabotaje-Tang whether she is "anti-Duterte," whether she likes the vice president, whether she is a Kakampink (supporter of former Vice President Leni Robredo), and whether she is friends with Diokno.

Throughout the proceedings, Cabotaje-Tang maintained she agreed to testify in compliance with a court subpoena, issued upon the request of the prosecution. 

She maintained she was not "anti-Duterte" and has remained apolitical her whole life, much of it spent prosecuting ill-gotten wealth cases for the government. She had spent over three decades at the Office of the Solicitor General and 12 at the Sandiganbayan.

Cabotaje-Tang pointed out that she and Diokno were not close and had, in fact, been opposing counsel in the Arroyo cases at the Court of Appeals.  

Asked directly by the defense if she was receiving anything in exchange for her testimony, Cabotaje-Tang said she would never take the stand if offered anything, material or otherwise. "My testimony is not for sale," she said.

2. What the court heard about unexplained wealth, SALNs and business divestment

Cabotaje-Tang testified that a finding of wealth that is out of proportion to an official's salary and lawful income — whether held in the official's name or someone else's — is a ground for dismissal or removal under Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Under Republic Act 1379, she said, such wealth is presumed to have been unlawfully acquired, and the presumption disappears only if the official satisfactorily explains how it was lawfully obtained.

Assets registered to a spouse, children or third parties can be attributed to the official when those persons lacked the financial capacity to acquire them and ownership is traceable back, she said, citing Republic vs. Rabusa and Heirs of Ligot vs. Sandiganbayan. 

Upon further questioning, she said officials can hide wealth through dummies, nominees and proxies. Bank deposits of an official, spouse and dependents may be examined despite any contrary law.

On SALNs, she said repeated omissions are not just simply mistakes and are themselves a "red flag" that may indicate an intent to conceal. Spouse's assets must also be declared unless the couple has complete separation of property. 

On business, she said the Constitution imposes an absolute ban on the president and vice president, who must divest of everything — including stock holdings — within 30 days of assuming office.

During the direct, Cabotaje-Tang explained the Supreme Court believes there must be higher standards set for the president and vice president, given the "greater power" they wield compared to lower officials.   

"Because they have greater powers, according to the Supreme Court, there are more stringent prohibitions. Because of the powers that they wield, there is the greater possibility of abuse in their office," she explained.

3. Senators ask ex-Sandiganbayan justice about facts of Duterte case

The prosecution's case on Article II rests largely on AMLC reports covering P6.77 billion in transactions involving Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, alongside bank, tax and SEC records, and her SALNs from 2022 to 2024. 

To convict, prosecutors must essentially show that money moving through those accounts is wealth Duterte cannot account for, and that she hid it from her wealth declarations.

There were moments during the trial today that senator-judges put questions to Cabotaje-Tang that alluded to the facts of Duterte's case, without directly mentioning them.

Sen. Raffy Tulfo asked a hypothetical: What happens, he said, when billions of pesos move in and out of a public official's bank account, none of it declared in the SALN, and the official says the money was only parked there and never belonged to them?

Cabotaje-Tang said the money must be declared if the account is in the official's name. Failing to do so is an omission.

But an omission alone does not prove unexplained wealth, she said. Citing a Supreme Court ruling, she said the official must be given a chance to explain. The court then must weigh whether the lapse was an honest mistake or deliberate concealment.

Asked what it means when the same omission happens year after year, she said the Supreme Court has ruled that repetition can show intentional concealment and amount to dishonesty.

Tulfo also asked: What if the official says the undeclared property belongs to a well-earning spouse? If the explanation shows the property was lawfully acquired, Cabotaje-Tang said, it is not unexplained wealth. But the court would still examine why it was left out of the SALN.

Sen. Erwin Tulfo asked another hypothetical: What if an official receives P20 million or P50 million in a bank deposit, then withdraws it within days, leaving nothing in the account by year's end? And what if the official says the money was never theirs, that a spouse or relative had only asked them to hold it?

Cabotaje-Tang answered that the money would not need to be declared in the SALN at all. Because the form reports what an official holds at the close of the year, funds that pass through an account and are gone by then need not be declared. Such transactions, she said, would instead be a matter for the Anti-Money Laundering Council to look into.

Escudero also pressed Cabotaje-Tang on divestment, the third accusation under Article II.

He asked what the Constitution means when it bars a president or vice president from participating in business, directly or indirectly. Does it also mean they cannot own one? 

Cabotaje-Tang said yes. Pressed further, she said a president or vice president must give up every business upon assuming office, and that under RA 6713 the divestment must happen within 30 days.

Escudero then asked why the Civil Service Commission's standard SALN form still carries a blank for business interests if the two officials are barred from having any. Cabotaje-Tang said the form is pro forma and used by all government workers, and that a president or vice president should simply write "not applicable."

"Or umaasa ang Civil Service na malay mo madulas, magkamali, umamin (Or the Civil Service Commission is hoping that there'd be a slip, a mistake, an admission)," Escudero quipped.