A crushing legal defeat

The Senate, acting as the impeachment court (IC), has just dealt Sara Zimmerman Duterte a crushing blow, a devastating, irreversible legal defeat. By now, she is toast. Expect her removal as vice president.

Tuesday, July 21, in an unprecedented, sweeping order, the IC subpoenaed all the financial records of Sara, from the time she began in public office in 2007-2009 as vice mayor of Davao City, in 2010 to 2021 as mayor (both times she was not yet impeachable) and on to 2022-2025, as the vice president and an impeachable official.

The files to be delivered to the IC’s Senate Session Hall, by 9 a.m. Thursday, July 30, 2026 include: Sara’s statement of assets, liabilities and networth (SALNs, in particular, her SALNs in 2022 to 2025); BIR Income Tax Returns (with approval of the President); cash flow transactions monitored by the Anti-Money Laundering Council involving all the peso bank accounts of Sara and her husband, Manases Carpio, their 19 corporations and one partnership and the financial records of the Carpio law offices (except when lawyer-client information could be compromised).

“They (the records subpoenaed) are reasonably described, readily identifiable, prima facie relevant and material to the allegations under Article II,” said the IC.

Under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment, the Prosecution says Sara amassed wealth manifestly disproportionate to her lawful income and earnings.

Sara’s networth – assets minus liabilities – increased from P7.25 million in 2007 to P88.5 million in 2024, a 12.2-fold (over 12x) increase.

In three years as vice mayor and nine years as mayor, she drew a salary of only P2.1 million per year or P25.2 million in 12 years. As VP, she drew a salary of P4.5 million per year or P18 million in four years (2022-2025). Add P18 million plus P25.2 million, that’s P43.2 million.

Assume she did not spend a centavo of that P43.2 million (the Prosecution estimates her actual earnings in 14 years as a public official were only P30 million), how come she ended up with P88-million networth by 2024?

How come P6.77 billion in cash transactions were monitored by the AMLC in her bank accounts jointly with husband Manases? Of the P6.77 billion, P3 billion was traceable to Sara directly. How to explain then the mysterious cash flows totaling P6.77 billion? Look into Sara financial records – bank accounts, SALNs, income tax returns; the revenues and profits, if any, of the Sara and Manases couple’s private companies and businesses. Under the Constitution, the VP cannot engage in private business. In this light, Sara’s financial records become then, per IC, “prima facie relevant and material.”

In tracing back to 2007 Sara’s wealth creation, the IC said “the court will only allow these records to be used to establish a factual baseline against which the respondent’s assets, financial transactions and business interests during her present term may be assessed.”

It’s simple math. You cannot count up to 20 unless you start from one.

“Establishing such a factual baseline is recognized in settled jurisprudence involving allegations that a public officer’s wealth is manifestly disproportionate to the lawful income and financial capacity of the officer and the officer’s spouse,” explained the IC order penned by presiding officer Sen. Chiz Escudero, a lawyer.

Escudero cites the Supreme Court in Concerned Taxpayer v Doblada Jr. of 8 June 2005: “In determining whether the properties acquired were manifestly out of proportion to the lawful income of the spouses necessarily requires comparing their value with a spouse’s salaries, benefits, other lawful income and revenues from legitimately acquired properties or businesses.”

The Ombudsman v Bernardo (GR No. 181598) said: “Respondent’s beginning net worth must be considered for purposes of determining whether his disposable income was more than sufficient to justify his property acquisitions and foreign travels for the covered period and whether he possesses the financial capability to acquire or purchase properties as reported in his SALNs.”

The IC explains: “Such net worth of the respondent as declared in the statement filed by him or her from the first day of his employment with a government shall be considered as his true net worth as of such date for purposes of determining his capacity for future property acquisitions during his tenure as a public officer. Any unexplained increase in his net worth thereafter may fall within the ambit of the presumption provided for in Republic Act No. 1379 (Forfeiture of wealth unlawfully acquired by a government employee).”

Re Sara’s records from 2007 to 2021 –  their production is “strictly for that limited purpose only.” “Their admissibility and evidentiary use shall remain subject to the prosecution establishing their connection to the alleged unexplained wealth during the respondent’s present term in relation only to Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.”

The IC considered the assets of Atty. Carpio and Sara as an “absolute community of property” by reason of marriage.

The IC denied the defense’s use of the Data Privacy Act to protect the confidentiality of Sara’s financial records. The IC cited Section 16(b) of the Data Privacy Act which expressly states that the right to privacy does not apply when personal information is needed pursuant to a subpoena.

Re the 19 companies and one partnership of Sara and Manases, the IC said, “The Respondent’s connection to these entities is prima facie shown by the General Information Sheets in the Articles of Partnership which have been pre-marked in evidence and by her admitted SALNs from 2022 to 2025. The request, therefore, is not considered a fishing expedition and subpoenas may issue for their peso-denominated accounts strictly only in relation to Article II.”

The IC clarified Section 8-A of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) which bans unauthorized and arbitrary disclosures by AMLC personnel: “It does not and constitutionally cannot nullify the lawful subpoena powers of the Senate sitting as an impeachment court…”

After all, if the Sandigan, a lower court, can subpoena AMLC records, why not the impeachment court?

Email: [email protected]