Day 24 Sara Duterte Impeachment Trial : The law before the bank records

“My testimony is not for sale.”

Retired Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang gave that answer during a pointed cross-examination on Day 24 of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial on September 14. The defense had asked whether she had been promised a government position or anything else in exchange for appearing as a prosecution witness.

But the bigger story of Day 24 was not the exchange between the witness and Duterte’s lawyers.

The Senate impeachment court had moved to Article II, which accuses Duterte of accumulating wealth disproportionate to her lawful income, making untruthful disclosures in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, or SALNs, and maintaining prohibited business interests while serving as vice president. These remain allegations that the prosecution must prove.

Instead of beginning with bank officials or stacks of financial records, prosecutors called Cabotaje-Tang to explain the laws that will be used to assess the evidence.

That made Day 24 less about finding a smoking gun and more about defining the rules before the money trail is put before the court.

Five things to know from Day 24

1. Article II has moved the trial from confidential funds to personal finances. Prosecutors are preparing more than 1,800 bank, tax and other financial records. They intend to compare those records with Duterte’s SALNs, tax information and data cited from an Anti-Money Laundering Council report. The court has also asked Duterte to respond to 104 requests for admission involving the authenticity of bank documents and ownership of accounts.
2. The defense tried to stop Cabotaje-Tang from testifying. Defense lawyer Mark Vinluan argued that she was a “surprise witness” who had not been specifically identified in the pretrial order. Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero rejected the objection, saying the order allowed additional witnesses. Cabotaje-Tang then testified about unexplained wealth, SALNs and public officials’ business interests.
3. Unexplained wealth is not established simply because a large amount appears in a bank record. RA 1379 says property manifestly out of proportion to a public official’s salary and other lawful income is presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired, subject to the official’s opportunity to explain its legitimate source. Section 8 of RA 3019 provides that a finding of such disproportionate wealth may be a ground for dismissal or removal, and permits consideration of assets in the names of a spouse or dependents when their legitimate acquisition cannot be satisfactorily shown.
4. The SALN issue became more specific. RA 6713 requires officials to disclose assets including cash on hand or in banks, as well as business interests and financial connections. Duterte’s lawyer Michael Poa has said cash from 2019 onward was included under the category “others.” Current CSC guidance says income still held by the official at the SALN reckoning date should form part of cash on hand or cash in bank. Cabotaje-Tang also told the court that money merely passing through an account and no longer held by the official at year-end would not have to appear in that year’s SALN, although such transactions could still be examined by the AMLC.
5. P6.77 billion is a transaction figure, not a verdict. Prosecutors have cited an AMLC report covering 663 transactions involving Duterte and her husband, Manases Carpio, with an aggregate value of about P6.77 billion. About P3.77 billion was linked to Duterte and P2.99 billion to Carpio, according to the prosecution’s account of the records. Those totals measure money moving through accounts. The prosecution still has to connect the transactions to assets or wealth attributable to Duterte and show that these cannot be reconciled with lawful income and disclosures. The defense, in turn, can challenge ownership, context and the source of the funds.

What the law actually says about business interests

Article VII, Section 13 of the Constitution says the President and Vice President may not “directly or indirectly” participate in any business during their tenure. It also tells them to strictly avoid conflicts of interest. Cabotaje-Tang testified that these restrictions should be read strictly because of the powers of the country’s two highest executive officials.

There is another rule worth separating from that constitutional prohibition. Under RA 6713, when a conflict of interest arises, a public official must resign from a position in a private business within 30 days of assumption of office and divest shareholdings or interests within 60 days.

The distinction matters because the trial still has to determine what Duterte’s disclosed business interests were, whether she was participating in those businesses while vice president, and what the law required her to do about them. Cabotaje-Tang’s interpretation is testimony before the impeachment court. It is not itself a finding that Duterte violated the Constitution.

The P6.77-billion question

This is the number most likely to travel fastest on social media, and it is also the one that needs the most context.

“P6.77 billion in transactions” does not mean Duterte had P6.77 billion sitting in a bank account. It does not mean her net worth was P6.77 billion. And the total alone does not establish unexplained wealth.

The question is what the transactions represent.

Prosecutors say the records must be matched against Duterte’s SALNs, declared income, tax records and other financial documents. That comparison is what could show whether money belonged to Duterte, came from lawful sources, moved temporarily through an account, represented legitimate business activity, or requires another explanation.

That distinction became clearer when Cabotaje-Tang was given a hypothetical involving millions entering an official’s account and being withdrawn before the end of the year. She said money no longer held at the SALN reckoning date would not have to appear in that SALN. But the transaction itself could still fall within AMLC scrutiny.

So P6.77 billion makes for an eye-catching headline. It is the records behind that number that matter.

What netizens were talking about

The public comments I could verify were mostly from Reddit threads that followed news reports and the Day 24 proceedings. They should be read as examples of online reaction, not as a survey of Filipino opinion.

A recurring reaction focused on the defense’s questions about Cabotaje-Tang’s supposed political leanings. Vinluan asked whether she was “anti-Duterte” and whether she was a “Kakampink.” Reddit commenters questioned why the cross-examination was spending time on political labels instead of the legal principles and forthcoming financial records.

Cabotaje-Tang’s “My testimony is not for sale” response also spread quickly. In one r/newsPH discussion, commenters treated the exchange as a criticism of the defense strategy of attacking the witness’s motives. That thread leaned heavily against the defense, so it should not be taken as representative of wider sentiment.

Another discussion moved beyond Duterte’s case and asked whether rules on public officials’ wealth and financial interests matter if they are poorly enforced. One comment put it simply: “Dapat. Pero ndi sinusunod .” Others made the same point in different words, that strict rules mean little without enforcement.

This is also why social-media reactions need context. Day 24 produced several lines made for clips and screenshots, but Article II will not be decided by the sharpest courtroom comeback or the most shared P6.77-billion graphic.

The records come next

Day 24 did not establish that Sara Duterte illegally acquired P6.77 billion. It established the legal questions that prosecutors want the Senate impeachment court to apply once the bank, tax, corporate and SALN records are presented.

There is already a specific next checkpoint. Philippine National Bank and UnionBank were given until September 17 to complete their submission of subpoenaed records, with Escudero saying the deadline would no longer be extended.

The defense also has a non-extendible 15-day period, counted from September 8, to answer the prosecution’s 104 requests for admission concerning bank records and account ownership.

For those of us following the trial, the useful work is more specific than choosing which viral quote to share. When the financial records are presented, compare them with the SALNs, lawful income and the explanations given in court.

On September 17 and in the hearings that follow, let the records lead the conversation, not the P6.77-billion headline.