(Screenshot from Senate livestream)
MANILA – The Senate impeachment court on Wednesday ruled that a corporate lawyer testifying in Vice President Sara Duterte’s unexplained wealth case cannot selectively invoke attorney-client privilege when answering questions involving two companies linked to the Vice President.
Presiding Officer Francis Escudero allowed defense witness Atty. Suzette Balucanag-Punay, legal counsel of GenCorp Industries Inc. and Metro City Chow Foods Corp., to continue her testimony on the presumption that both corporations had authorized her appearance and waived their attorney-client privilege.
“The court will, in the meantime, allow the testimony of Attorney Punay on her oath as a lawyer, upon which she owes candor and fidelity not only to the regular courts but to this court as well,” Escudero said.
Escudero emphasized that Punay could not selectively invoke attorney-client privilege to avoid answering questions unfavorable to the defense while responding to those supporting its position.
The ruling came after prosecutors questioned Punay’s authority to testify on behalf of the two corporations and present documents concerning Duterte’s alleged lack of ownership, control or involvement in their operations.
Senator-Judge Francis Pangilinan sought clarification on whether the companies had authorized Punay to testify and waive their attorney-client privilege.
He recalled that defense lawyer Michael Poa had previously invoked the same privilege when questioned by senator-judges during proceedings involving other impeachment charges.
Escudero clarified that the presumed waiver applied to the corporations and did not automatically extend to individual shareholders.
He said Punay could still invoke attorney-client privilege concerning confidential communications with shareholders whom she separately represented in their individual capacities.
Punay acknowledged the court’s conditions, allowing her testimony to proceed.
“With the response of the witness, we can proceed,” Pangilinan said.
Prosecution questions witness authority
Earlier, private prosecutor Atty. Lorna Kapunan challenged Punay’s qualifications to testify on behalf of GenCorp and Metro City Chow Foods, demanding proof that both corporations had authorized her appearance.
“We want to know whether this witness really is qualified,” Kapunan told the impeachment court.
Kapunan pointed out that Punay’s name did not appear in the companies’ General Information Sheets (GIS), financial statements or articles of incorporation.
She asked the defense to present written board resolutions or secretary’s certificates confirming Punay’s authority to testify and authenticate corporate documents.
Defense lawyers maintained that Punay appeared before the impeachment court pursuant to a subpoena and argued that lawyers possess implied authority to represent their clients.
However, Kapunan insisted that a subpoena alone might not establish the witness’s authority to speak on behalf of the corporations.
“It may not be a complete authority for her to testify here,” she said.
The prosecutor warned that the companies could later dispute whether Punay had been authorized to disclose information or present documents during the proceedings.
Kapunan also raised concerns that Punay might invoke attorney-client privilege when questioned about matters unfavorable to the defense.
Corporate records under scrutiny
The prosecution agreed to stipulate the legal existence of GenCorp and Metro City Chow Foods and their involvement in the fast-food business.
However, Kapunan reserved the prosecution’s right to cross-examine Punay on other matters, particularly the defense’s claim that Duterte had no ownership interest or capital contribution in GenCorp.
Prosecutors also intend to question the witness about Duterte’s alleged involvement in the two companies and the defense’s challenge to Table 39 of forensic accounting expert Alexander Cabrera’s report.
“Again, this is subject to cross-examination,” Kapunan said.
Punay, the fourth defense witness under Article II, is expected to present corporate records, including General Information Sheets, audited financial statements and other documents covering 2022 to 2025.
Her testimony forms part of the defense’s effort to dispute allegations of unexplained wealth against Duterte.
Article II remains the sole impeachment charge against the Vice President following the withdrawal of three other articles.
