IMPEACHMENT WATCH: Four articles... And then there was one

On October 13, 2026, during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, the House prosecution withdrew Articles I, III, and IV, concerning confidential funds, bribery, and grave threats, respectively, and manifested that they would only pursue Article II on unexplained wealth. They claimed that this move would be beneficial to the public and all the parties concerned, as it would save time and costs in the trial.

The defense objected vehemently, claiming that this would be unfair for the respondent since the trial gave the prosecution the chance to hear all its evidence on Articles I and IV, but the respondent would be denied that chance to present its own evidence.

The prosecution argued that the defense had been given a chance to cross-examine the witnesses presented, and could also use other platforms to provide its evidence. Some senator judges expressed concerns about fairness and due process.

In the end, Presiding Judge Chiz Escudero decided to accept the withdrawal, subject to certain conditions, including the lifting of the sub-judice gag order, and dismissal of the withdrawn Articles I and III with prejudice.

And Now Everything Rests on Article II

Article II concerns allegations that Vice President Duterte accumulated wealth manifestly disproportionate to her lawful income, failed to fully and truthfully disclose assets in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs), and maintained business interests allegedly prohibited by the Constitution.

The Witnesses

The prosecution began by presenting retired Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang, who explained the legal principles governing unexplained wealth, SALN disclosures, and prohibited business interests.

The prosecution next presented Karen Batu of the Office of the Ombudsman, who authenticated Duterte's SALNs, and Gerardo del Rosario of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) who testified concerning corporate records filed with the SEC of corporations connected with Vice President Duterte and/or her husband.

Batu testified that Duterte's SALNs contained cash declarations in earlier years but her declarations for 2019 through 2025 did not list cash on hand or in bank. Business interests in GenCorp was disclosed in the SALN but not in the SEC filings.

No amount was separately declared for all these business interests in the SALNs. AMLC Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura then testified that the AMLC had records of approximately ₱4.4 billion in covered and suspicious transactions involving Duterte and her husband.

He also discussed ₱319 million in remittances from China and Hong Kong to CaLe88 Foods Corporation, a food company linked to Carpio.

The AMLC testimony brought attention to suspicious transaction reports filed by banks and other financial institutions, but could not provide explanation other than what the reports stated.

Bank Records and Year-end Balances

On October 7, bank and insurance representatives testified about accounts, deposits, and financial products associated with Duterte and her husband.

One particularly significant comparison concerned year-end bank balances. According to the prosecution's summary of bank records, the couple's combined balances across eight banks were approximately ₱59 million in 2022, ₱71.3 million in 2023, and ₱22.2 million in 2024, whereas, Duterte's SALNs for those years declared no cash on hand or in bank.

The defense, however, had argued that cash could be included under “other property “category. The prosecution countered that the reported bank balances appeared substantially greater than the amounts declared even in that category.

The BIR Evidence: Income and Tax Audits

On October 8, a Bureau of Internal Revenue official, testified that Duterte and Carpio had combined income net of tax of approximately ₱85.34 million from 2007 to 2025.

She also confirmed that the BIR had issued letters of authority for tax audits involving Duterte and Carpio, covering tax records extending over a substantial period, and that CaLe88 Foods Corporation was also under audit.

The Forensic Accountant's Findings

The prosecution's final witness, Alexander Cabrera, a CPA-lawyer and former chairman of PwC Philippines' local member firm, presented his financial analysis. His testimony proved to be the most consequential as it tied up all the different financial information and reports earlier presented by the witnesses.

Cabrera estimated that Duterte and Carpio had approximately ₱817.87 million in undeclared assets and income from 2022 to 2025. His analysis drew on bank, tax, AMLC, and corporate records obtained through court subpoenas.

It comprised alleged undeclared bank balances as of end of the year, unreported property and insurance interests, and undeclared income associated with business interests, including a computed share from CaLe88, Metro City and GenCorp.

Cabrera also drew attention on the practice of withdrawing about P96 million in manager’s checks, and allowing these checks to float and not be deposited so these will not show in year-end bank balances.

His computation of 20% as Duterte’s share in GenCorp, equivalent to about P212.63 million including undeclared income, however, drew criticisms from some senator judges as lacking legal basis.

Cabrera maintained that 20% was a conservative estimate based on Duterte’s other business dealings with interlocking directors, and “piercing the veil of corporate entity” was acceptable in view of significant under-declared income of GenCorp.

Cabrera summarized his findings as follows:

1. Duterte’s SALNs for 2022-2025 were untruthful because substantial bank balances and other assets were not included;

2. VP Duterte continued to have business dealings while Vice President;

3. The estimated total unexplained wealth was P817 million, based only on available records and excluding those that were not in the custody of the Senate court, such as forex accounts, digital wallets, vaults and safes, crypto accounts, etc.;

4. The discrepancies indicated a year-on-year pattern of constitutional violations;

5. In addition to the Constitution, certain laws and regulations might have been violated, including the National Internal Revenue Code, SEC rules, RA 6713, RA1379, etc. During cross-examination, the defense disputed the forensic findings, and tried to cast doubts on Cabrera's independence, methodology, and analysis.

Conclusion

The impeachment trial will resume on November 9, with the prosecution set to offer its evidence on the remaining charge of Article II.

Till then, the public waits in suspense for the next steps that the defense will take.

Atty. Nena Radoc is a CPA-Lawyer-MBA with over 40 years of management experience in local and multinational companies.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the author are her own and do not in any way reflect those of Paraluman News.