THE House prosecution in the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte presented on Monday, September 14, 2026, what the defense identified as a “surprise” witness as the impeachment court tackled Article 2 of the articles of impeachment, which accuses the respondent of unexplained wealth.
The defense opposed the presentation of Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang as the prosecution’s witness during the 24th day of the impeachment trial, saying it is “improper.”
As a lawyer herself, defense counsel Mark Vinluan said Tang’s testimony will already elicit conclusions of law, which is the primary role of the senator-judges.
He said they were also not provided with any materials related to her testimony which would enable them to prepare for examination.
“Justice Tang’s presentation is likewise improper. She is not testifying as an amicus curiae. With all due respect to her, the court never intervened or approved her testimony on her expertise or field of specialization. She is not a friend of the court,” Vinluan said.
In defense, House prosecutor and Akbayan party-list Rep. Chel Diokno explained that Tang’s expertise on public accountability laws, particularly on principles governing hidden, ill-gotten and unexplained wealth, is necessary for better understanding by the public as well as the court itself.
“Kung hindi malinaw sa judge kung ano ang ipinagbabawal ng batas, paano magiging makatarungan ang kaniyang paghuhusga? Kung hindi malinaw sa sambayanang Pilipino kung ano ang pinagbabawal sa batas, paano nila malalaman kung dapat mapapanagot ang respondent sa kasong ito,” said Diokno.
(If it is not clear to the judge what the law prohibits, how can his or her judgment be fair? If it is not clear to the Filipino people what the law prohibits, how will they know whether the respondent should be held accountable in this case?)
Presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero allowed the presentation of Tang but noted that her testimony is not binding on the courts and that her opinion is not conclusive.
Escudero noted and put into the records the continuing objection on the matter.
Tang has been in government service for around 44 years, starting off as a judicial assistant at the Supreme Court.
She worked at the Office of the Solicitor General for 31 years before being named an associate justice of the Sandiganbayan.
From 2013 to 2024, Tang served as presiding justice of the Sandiganbayan.
Upon Diokno’s questioning, Tang differentiated between hidden wealth, unexplained wealth and ill-gotten wealth.
She said wealth of a public official is deemed questionable if it is acquired during incumbency and the amount is grossly disproportionate to their salary, other lawful income and income generated from their legitimately acquired properties.
She noted that unexplained wealth covers properties and assets belonging to one’s spouse and children below 18 years old.
Tang said unexplained wealth can be verified and cross-examined using a public official’s statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN), as well as through their income tax return and lifestyle.
“If it is shown that an official acquired property that is grossly or manifestly disproportionate to his salary, lawful income and income from lawfully acquired properties, it is presumed to have been unlawfully acquired. This presumption, however, is rebuttable,” Tang said.
“This means that if a public official can satisfactorily explain how he or she lawfully acquired those properties, that presumption will no longer apply,” she added.
Tang also noted a provision under Republic Act 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, which prohibits the President and Vice President, as well as their spouses, from owning a corporation or participating in any business due to the greater possibility of abuse of power in their respective offices.
“Given the fact that the President and Vice President are the two highest officials of the land, ang sinasabi doon [it’s stated that], there is the greater possibility of abuse in their office,” Tang said.
“They have greater powers, as stated by the Supreme Court. That’s why the prohibitions are more stringent for them, and because of the powers that they wield, there is a greater possibility of abuse in their office,” she added.
She said unexplained wealth is a ground for a public official’s removal from office, noting that the State’s right to recover acquired wealth from public officials does not expire even if the assets were accumulated years earlier, as provided under Article XI, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution.
During the House hearing on the impeachment complaints against Duterte in April, the Office of the Ombudsman submitted to the panel copies of the SALNs of the Vice President from 2007 to 2012, when she served as vice mayor and mayor of Davao City, and from 2016 to 2024, when she was elected as mayor of the said city and later became the second-highest government official in the country.
Here are the declared net worth of Duterte and Carpio, with the corresponding period and cash deposits based on their SALNs:
2007 – P7,250,497 (cash on hand/bank – P2 million)
2008 – P18,493,616.65 (cash on hand/bank – P2 million)
2009 – P18,281,264.65 (cash on hand/bank – P2 million)
2010 – P16,242,886.65 (cash on hand/bank – P3,661,622)
2011 – P14,271,148.45 (cash on hand/bank – P3,931,125.80)
2012 – P22,116,101.93 (cash on hand/bank – P4,320,532.00)
2016 – P34,895,997 (cash on hand/bank – P3,750,760.00)
2017 – P44,828,759 (cash on hand/bank – P6,368,596.00)
2018 – P49,699,728 (cash on hand/bank – P3,795,000.00)
2019 – P55,613,051 (no declared cash on hand/deposit)
2020 – P56,583,735.01 (no declared cash on hand/deposit)
2021 – P65,308,841 (no declared cash on hand/deposit)
2022 – P71,658,841 (no declared cash on hand/deposit)
2023 – P77,508,841 (no declared cash on hand/deposit)
2024 – P88,512,370.22 (no declared cash on hand/deposit)
The sudden and continuous absence of cash on hand and cash in bank declarations, despite the fact that there were previously reported amounts, raises doubts about the accuracy and completeness of Duterte’s subsequent SALNs.
It can also be noted in the couple’s SALNs that they declared the same amount of real assets from 2009 to 2011 at P10,802,668.65; in 2016 and 2017 at P30,548,891.00; and from 2019 to 2020 at P39,798,891.00.
They also had steady personal assets in 2019 and 2020 at P19,274,950.00 and in 2021 and 2022 at P23,849,950.00.
The spouses’ SALNs also indicate their business interests in various companies during the said period. (TPM/SunStar Philippines)