Explaining what is "unexplained wealth"

The most difficult hurdle that the VP Sara defense team must surmount is how to explain billions that went into the vice president's bank account compared to her income.  In the Philippines, unexplained wealth refers to money or property acquired by a public official that is manifestly out of proportion to their official salary and other lawful income. It serves as a legal presumption of ill-gotten and unlawful enrichment 

Section 8 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act or RA 3019 provides that a public official may be dismissed if he or she is found to have acquired during his incumbency, whether in his name or in the name of other persons, an amount of property and/or money manifestly out of proportion to his salary and to his other lawful income, that fact shall be a ground for dismissal or removal.

This provision is to the end that where any public officer or employee acquires during his incumbency, assets manifestly out of proportion to his salary during service and his other lawful income from legitimate sources, he can be said to have unlawfully acquired such assets. The magic phrase is "manifestly out of proportion." That is precisely why bank secrecy should give way the police power of the State.

The VP will have the burden to prove how billions were allegedly deposited in her account. Properties in the name of the spouse and unmarried children of such public officials may be taken into consideration, when their acquisition through legitimate means cannot be satisfactorily shown. Bank deposits shall be taken into consideration in the enforcement of this section, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary.

Since this is a provision of law, it goes without saying that the impeachment court can order the opening of the accounts, otherwise, there will be no way for the State or the government to determine whether or not, the impeachable officials did or not acquire wealth which is way above the level of his or income through lawful means, including the salaries and benefits appurtenant to the position occupied by him or her.  

May the vice president be subject to suspension and loss of benefits pending impeachment trial? The law provides:  Any public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. But since impeachment is not like a criminal case, suspension may not be imposed.

The anti-graft law further stipulates that should he or she be convicted by final judgment, the accused shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law, but if he is acquitted, he or she shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the meantime administrative proceedings have been filed against him or her.

Again, this will happen only when the vice president is charged criminally after the impeachment and convicted accordingly. This is because the effect of conviction by the impeachment court is only removal from office and probably perpetual disqualification from holding public office. The purpose of charging her criminally is to secure conviction and imprisonment and fine.