Day 28: GenCorp Contracts and the Questions Around Sara Duterte’s Business Interests

The 28th day of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial put corporate records and government contracts at the center of Article II.

On September 22, the Senate impeachment court continued hearing allegations that Duterte accumulated unexplained wealth, failed to fully disclose assets and business interests in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs), and failed to divest from business interests after becoming vice president. Duterte’s defense has denied the allegations.

Two witnesses figured prominently in the proceedings: Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Company Registration and Monitoring Department Director Gerardo Fernando del Rosario and PhilGEPS Division Chief Rendell Sopeña. Their testimony raised separate questions about Duterte’s declared business interests, the income of companies associated with her and her husband, and government contracts awarded to GenCorp Industries Inc.

Here are five highlights from Day 28.

1. No dividends does not necessarily mean no business income

During cross-examination, defense lawyer Justin Gular asked Del Rosario about dividends from companies in which Duterte or her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, had interests.

Del Rosario confirmed that Section 42 of the Revised Corporation Code says a board of directors “may declare dividends” from unrestricted retained earnings. The use of “may” means corporations are not legally required to declare dividends.

This was an important qualification because questions had been raised about whether Duterte’s increasing net worth could have come from the family’s businesses.

The SEC witness had earlier testified that 10 of 18 companies associated with Duterte or Carpio did not declare dividends during various years from 2004 to 2025. For another eight firms, the SEC did not have sufficient annual financial statements to determine whether dividends had been declared.

That distinction matters. An absence of declared dividends from some companies does not, on its own, establish where Duterte’s wealth did or did not come from.

Her declared net worth increased from P7.25 million in 2007 to P98.66 million in 2025, according to her SALNs. The 2025 figure represented an 11.46 percent increase from her P88.5 million net worth in 2024.

The prosecution is questioning whether that increase can be reconciled with her lawful sources of income and declared interests. The defense has said it has a strategy to explain movements in the SALN figures.

2. The bigger question is not simply whether dividends were paid

The dividend issue is only one part of Article II.

Article VII, Section 13 of the Constitution states that the President and Vice President shall not, during their tenure, directly or indirectly participate in any business or be financially interested in a government contract, franchise or special privilege. They are also required to avoid conflicts of interest.

On Day 27, Del Rosario testified that General Information Sheets filed with the SEC showed Duterte remained a member of the board of Metro City Chow Foods Corp. from 2022 through 2025, including after she became vice president.

The SEC witness, however, is not the one who will decide whether those circumstances amount to a constitutional violation. That determination belongs to the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.

The defense has also challenged how the prosecution has presented SEC data. On Day 27, Gular argued that an SEC summary titled “Summary of Vice President Sara Duterte’s Shareholding” included figures referring to corporations, rather than amounts personally paid by Duterte. He described the presentation as misleading.

So the distinction is important: corporate records may establish positions, shareholdings and filings. Whether those records prove prohibited business participation is a separate legal question for the senator-judges.

3. Why is GenCorp in Duterte’s SALN but not in GenCorp’s corporate records?

GenCorp Industries Inc. emerged as one of Day 28’s most closely watched companies.

Duterte listed GenCorp as one of her business interests in her 2024 and 2025 SALNs. But according to SEC testimony, Duterte’s name does not appear in GenCorp’s corporate records submitted to the commission.

That produces an obvious question the proceedings have yet to resolve: What exactly was the nature of Duterte’s declared interest in GenCorp?

The discrepancy should not automatically be treated as proof of wrongdoing. A SALN declaration and an SEC corporate filing record different types of information, and an interest in a company does not necessarily require appearing as a direct stockholder or director.

But the difference is relevant because Duterte herself disclosed GenCorp as a business interest while the company’s SEC documents apparently do not identify her as an incorporator, director or direct stockholder.

The Senate impeachment court will ultimately have to determine what that discrepancy means in relation to Article II.

4. PhilGEPS records showed P35.878 million in GenCorp government contracts

The afternoon proceedings moved from SEC corporate filings to government procurement.

PhilGEPS Division Chief Rendell Sopeña testified that records in the government’s procurement system showed 49 contract awards to GenCorp worth P35,878,188 from July 21, 2022 to June 2026. Duterte assumed office as vice president on June 30, 2022.

The PhilGEPS records presented in court broke the contracts down this way:

• 15 contract awards from the Davao City government worth P34,216,900
• 33 awards from PhilHealth Region XI worth P1,331,288
• one OWWA Region XI award worth P330,000

Together, the records totaled P35.878 million.

The figures establish that GenCorp received government contracts. They do not, by themselves, establish that Duterte benefited financially from those contracts.

That distinction is particularly relevant because Article VII, Section 13 prohibits the vice president from being financially interested in a government contract. The prosecution would still have to establish the nature of Duterte’s interest in GenCorp and whether it falls within that constitutional prohibition.

At one point, House prosecutor Gerville Luistro went through the details of a catering procurement document. Presiding Officer Francis Escudero asked her to move past descriptions of items such as ketchup and hotdogs and focus on the evidentiary point of the contract. The exchange quickly became one of the day’s more talked-about moments online.

5. Baste Duterte says Davao City had 19 GenCorp transactions worth P33.2 million

Another development came from Davao City Mayor Sebastian “Baste” Duterte, the Vice President’s brother.

Before his scheduled testimony, Mayor Duterte issued a statement saying the Davao City government had 19 transactions with GenCorp worth more than P33.2 million. He said he and other city officials did not know that his sister had declared an interest in the company.

He also said Duterte’s name did not appear in the corporate documents GenCorp submitted in connection with the transactions.

According to Mayor Duterte, 13 contracts had been completed and six remained ongoing. Four were secured through competitive public bidding, while 15 went through small-value procurement. He maintained that the transactions were above board.

The prosecution viewed his statement differently.

Private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan described it as a “confession,” while fellow private prosecutor Benjamin Tolosa Jr. said Mayor Duterte should still testify so his statements could formally become part of the impeachment record. Their characterization is the prosecution’s position, not a finding of the impeachment court.

Mayor Duterte has been ordered to appear before the impeachment court from September 28 to 30.

There is also a discrepancy that bears watching. The PhilGEPS presentation showed 15 Davao City contract awards totaling P34.2169 million, while Mayor Duterte referred to 19 transactions worth more than P33.2 million. The available records do not yet establish why the figures differ.

His testimony and the underlying procurement records may help clarify whether the two figures cover different transactions, periods or procurement stages.

Netizen reactions: From GenCorp questions to ketchup memes

Day 28 generated active discussion online, particularly around the mismatch between Duterte’s SALN and GenCorp’s corporate records.

One Reddit user asked:

“So if hindi sa business at hindi sa salary, saan nga galing ang yaman?”

The comment reflected questions raised by some viewers about the source of Duterte’s increased net worth, although it should not be mistaken for a factual conclusion about where her assets came from.

Another commenter focused directly on GenCorp:

“From start to finish. Pure technicalities. Paliwanag niyo naman bat nasa SALN yung Gencorp Industries kahit wala sya sa GIS at articles”

That question mirrors one of the factual issues that emerged from the SEC testimony, although the legal significance of the discrepancy remains for the impeachment court to determine.

There were also viewers who reminded others that cross-examination should not be confused with the defense’s eventual presentation of evidence:

“it’s not their time to present their defense e hahah cross examination lang yan. hindi yan boring pag mag present na sila ng evidence in chief nila.”

That procedural distinction matters. The prosecution is still presenting its case under Article II, while the defense is testing prosecution witnesses through cross-examination.

And then there was ketchup.

After Escudero asked Luistro to skip detailed descriptions of food items in one contract, the exchange produced jokes about Chickenjoy, hotdogs and ketchup across the Day 28 discussion thread. One user quoted the exchange:

“This is a 50,000 peso contract and we’re talking about ketchup.”

The humor briefly overshadowed the larger reason the document was being presented: prosecutors were tracing government procurement involving GenCorp.

These Reddit comments represent reactions from one online community. They are not a scientific measure of public opinion and should not be read as representative of Filipinos as a whole.

Fact check: What Day 28 actually showed

Several distinctions are worth keeping clear.

First, it is inaccurate to say that all companies associated with Duterte and Carpio paid no dividends. The SEC witness said 10 of 18 firms did not declare dividends during various years. For eight others, the SEC lacked the financial statements needed to determine whether dividends had been declared.

Second, current reporting confirms that GenCorp appears in Duterte’s 2024 and 2025 SALNs. SEC testimony also confirms that her name does not appear in the GenCorp corporate records examined. The discrepancy exists, but its explanation and legal significance have not yet been established by the impeachment court.

Third, the 49 PhilGEPS contract awards are documented procurement records, not proof by themselves that Duterte received money from GenCorp. The records establish government transactions with the company. A financial connection to Duterte would require additional evidence.

Fourth, Mayor Sebastian Duterte’s claim that the Davao City transactions were lawful is his position. Likewise, prosecutors’ description of his statement as a “confession” is their interpretation. Neither characterization is an established finding of the impeachment court.

What Day 28 leaves unanswered

Day 28 added records, but it also exposed gaps that the impeachment court still has to resolve.

Why did Duterte declare GenCorp as a business interest when her name does not appear in the corporate records examined by the SEC? What exactly was the nature and value of that interest? Did she receive income from GenCorp or any of the other businesses associated with her and her husband? And what explains the difference between the GenCorp transactions reported by Davao City and those appearing in the PhilGEPS presentation?

The prosecution still has to connect corporate and procurement records to the specific allegations under Article II. The defense, meanwhile, will have the opportunity to present its own evidence and explanations after the prosecution completes its case.

For citizens following the trial, that distinction is worth maintaining. A government contract is not automatically evidence of corruption. A difference between two sets of records deserves an explanation, but it is not a verdict. And a prosecutor’s allegation or a defense lawyer’s response becomes established fact only when the evidence supports it.

Day 28 gave the Senate more pieces of the financial picture. What those pieces ultimately prove remains a question for the evidence, and for the senator-judges who will have to evaluate it.