Ex-justice: VP may be removed for hiding assets

MANILA, Philippines — Impeachable officials like Vice President Sara Duterte may be removed from office for “intentional concealment” of assets including those owned by their spouses, according to retired Sandiganbayan presiding justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang.

The issue of Duterte’s alleged ill-gotten wealth took center stage on Day 24 of the impeachment trial, focusing on the Vice President’s joint bank accounts with her husband, lawyer Maneses Carpio, and her alleged failure to divest her businesses while in office.

When Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian in his interjection asked the witness about the disparity between an official’s declared wealth in their statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) and an unexplained “wealth accumulation,” Cabotaje-Tang said it is “unacceptable,” especially if there is a repeat offense in misdeclaring their net worth.
Cabotaje-Tang agreed with Gatchalian’s question that “unexplained wealth” is a “ground for removal or dismissal” under the anti-graft law Republic Act 3019.

About declaring assets with their spouses, Cabotaje-Tang said a recent Supreme Court decision has a “qualification” that a married couple can come up with an “agreement of a complete separation of property before their marriage” that may exempt the public official from declaring their joint assets.

Without that agreement, a public official has to declare these joint assets, including businesses, properties and cash, or else he or she would be “penalized,” Cabotaje-Tang said.

“It’s only the government official, sir, who is required to file a SALN. And that public official is required to include the assets of his or her spouse,” she said.

An official may not be charged with “intentional concealment” if the public official was kept in the dark about joint bank accounts with their spouse, Cabotaje-Tang said, citing another Supreme Court case.

Gatchalian asked Cabotaje-Tang if a public official with no intention of truthfully declaring their joint assets may be removed from office.

“Yes, sir,” Cabotaje-Tang said.

Officials must divest

Duterte’s lawyers vehemently tried but failed to block the testimony of Cabotaje-Tang, who underwent direct examination by Rep. Chel Diokno of party-list Akbayan.

When asked about her opinion on high officials like the president, vice president and Cabinet members on the provision of “conflict of interest,” Cabotaje-Tang maintained that all of them should “divest” any and all kinds of business interests, even a sari-sari store.

Cabotaje-Tang said the rationale is that their high positions in government might tempt them to abuse the industry they are representing, as they wield discretionary powers that could repeatedly result in decisions that would favor them.

This may happen – directly or indirectly – in firms which the government officials themselves manage while in office.

“It has been very clear in her testimony that the President and VP are barred from involving themselves in any business enterprise, that is as clear as sunlight,” House prosecution adviser and spokesman Robert Ace Barbers stressed during a press conference.

The prosecution made the assertion after Cabotaje-Tang discussed the distinction between retaining legitimate investments and continuing to participate in business while occupying the presidency or vice presidency.

For her part, House prosecutor and San Juan Rep. Bel Zamora explained that the business issue forms one of three separate components prosecutors intend to establish under Article II of the impeachment complaint against Duterte.

“The first one is amassing unexplained wealth. The second is the SALN violation. And the third is the failure to declare or divest business interests. So, these are three aspects of the unexplained wealth article,” she said.

Abuse of power

Cabotaje-Tang explained that the Constitution imposes an absolute ban on the president and vice president from participating in any business to prevent abuse of power.

Presiding officer Sen. Francis Escudero asked if the ban simply means the top officials cannot actively manage a company or if they are totally barred from owning one, even a sari-sari store.

Cabotaje-Tang said the prohibition covers both direct and indirect participation, including mere ownership or serving as a corporate director.

She emphasized that the president and vice president are legally required to divest from all business interests within 30 days of assuming office.

She clarified that the government’s pursuit of unexplained wealth has no expiration date.

Sen. Erwin Tulfo asked if there is a time limit for the state to investigate an official’s wealth, citing hypothetical scenarios where an incumbent mayor’s assets from their time as a barangay councilor 15 years prior are suddenly scrutinized.

“Under the Constitution, the right of the state to recover unlawfully acquired wealth is imprescriptible,” she told Tulfo.

During her testimony, she and Escudero discussed a technical loophole in how public officials declare their wealth through the SALN.

Escudero pointed out that the SALN captures a snapshot of an official’s wealth specifically as of Dec. 31 of the previous year.

He asked Cabotaje-Tang if a massive amount of money that enters an official’s bank account in October and is withdrawn by November should be declared in the April 30 filing.

She conceded that such funds would legally escape the declaration. — Neil Jayson Servallos, EJ Macababbad