Investigations into the alleged unexplained wealth of a public officer can cover properties and assets belonging not only to their spouse but also to their minor children, retired Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang told the Senate impeachment court on Monday.
Cabotaje-Tang was called to the witness stand by the prosecution team in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte in relation to her alleged unexplained wealth.
Article 2 of the impeachment complaint also accused Duterte of failing to ‘fully and truthfully disclose all her and her spouse’s assets, liabilities, and net worth’ in her statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN), and failing to divest all her business interests during her tenure as vice president from 2022 to 2025.
But when does an official’s wealth become questionable under the law?
Public prosecutor Jose Manuel Diokno posed this question during his direct examination of the witness.
‘Ayun sa batas ito’y kwestyunable (Under the law, it is considered questionable) if during the incumbency of the public official, he acquired wealth that is grossly disproportionate to his salary, other lawful income, and income generated from his legitimately acquired properties,’ Cabotaje-Tang said.
‘Paano malamalaman ng pamahalaan kung ang isang opisyal ay mayroon ngang unexplained wealth?’ Diokno then asked.
(How can the government determine whether an official has unexplained wealth?)
According to the witness, unexplained wealth can be determined usually by checking whether an official has filed a true and accurate SALN.
But investigators could also look into the official’s lifestyle and income tax return, Cabotaje-Tang added.
When Diokno asked what other documents investigators should look at when examining whether an official had unexplained wealth,’ the witness answered: ‘Even the properties and assets of the spouse and the children under 18 years of age…’
At this point, Counsel for the defense team, Mark Vinluan, objected.
‘Actually this is the danger that we’re concerned about because I don’t think the prosecution qualified this witness as an expert witness. Therefore , whatever opinion that she will share with us today is not expert opinion, but just her personal opinion,’ Vinulan said.
‘And that’s the danger of presenting her because she might present her own interpretations of the law again, which is the function of this court, your honor. So w’ere objecting to this line of questioning,’ he added.
But Presiding Officer and Sen. Francis ‘Chiz’ Escudero reiterated his ruling when he allowed the witness to testify in the trial that her testimony would still be subject to cross examination or the defense’s presentation of another witness.
‘Besides, anything she says as the presiding officer said earlier is neither conclusive nor binding upon this court. So we will note the objection, but the objection is overruled,’ Escudero stressed, noting the defense lawyer’s continuing objection to the witness’ qualifications to testify in the trial.
Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian later pursued the issue, asking the witness how unexplained wealth is usually concealed.
‘Well, public official will employ dummies or nominees or even proxies po or their assets are registered in the names of other people,’ Cabotaje-Tang replied.
But unexplained wealth, she said, could still be traced by examining the assets of the spouse and children or other people used by the public official.
‘Were they financially capable to lawfully acquire those assets? Kung wala silang kapasidad na bilhin yun in their independent capacity at traceable yung acquisition na yun doon sa public official then that asset will be attributed as asset of the public official,’ she pointed out.
(Were they financially capable to lawfully acquire those assets? If they did not have the financial capacity to purchase them independently, and the acquisition can be traced to the public official, then the asset will be attributed to the public official.)
Earlier in her testimony, Cabotaje-Tang was asked about the difference between hidden wealth, unexplained wealth, and ill-gotten wealth.
In simple terms, the witness defined hidden wealth as wealth that is being concealed.
‘For example , a public officer actually owns a property but that property is registeredin the name of another person,’ she said.