An unexplained-wealth investigation does not necessarily stop with property registered directly under a government official’s name, retired Sandiganbayan presiding justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang told the Senate impeachment court Monday.
Testifying as the prosecution opened Article II of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment case, Cabotaje-Tang said investigators may examine financial records, lifestyle indicators and assets connected to an official’s immediate family when determining whether wealth can be reconciled with lawful income.
Philippine law provides a basis for such scrutiny. Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713 requires public officials to disclose in their SALNs not only their own financial interests but also those of their spouses and unmarried children below 18 who live in their households.
The Supreme Court has said the disclosure requirement serves as a safeguard against using family members to conceal the actual extent of a public official’s wealth or financial interests.
Cabotaje-Tang told House prosecutor Chel Diokno that wealth may become questionable when assets accumulated during government service are grossly disproportionate to an official’s salary, other lawful earnings and income from legitimately acquired property.
SALNs are only part of that examination. Cabotaje-Tang said investigators may also look at income tax returns and lifestyle indicators, while RA 3019 permits consideration of bank deposits, property held by a spouse or dependents and expenditures that appear disproportionate to legitimate income.
Defense counsel Mark Vinluan objected to the questioning, arguing that Cabotaje-Tang had not been properly qualified as an expert and warning against allowing her interpretation of the law to substitute for the impeachment court’s own judgment.
Presiding officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero overruled the objection but emphasized that Cabotaje-Tang’s testimony is neither conclusive nor binding on the senator-judges. The allegations under Article II remain for the prosecution to prove and may be challenged by Duterte’s defense through cross-examination and its own evidence.
