THE IMPEACHMENT trial of Vice President Sara Duterte entered a critical phase last week as House prosecutors intensified efforts to establish allegations of unexplained wealth, while constitutional disputes emerged that could influence how the Senate ultimately decides the case.
The centerpiece of the prosecution’s presentation was financial evidence involving Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio. Witnesses from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), banking institutions, insurance companies, and the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) testified on transactions, assets, and tax records that prosecutors claim exceed what can be explained by declared income and official disclosures.
Among the most closely watched testimonies was that of AMLC Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura, who reported that the agency had recorded about P4.4 billion in covered and suspicious transactions involving Duterte and Carpio over several years. Prosecutors presented the data as supporting their allegations of unexplained wealth under Article II of the impeachment complaint.
Questions were also raised about inward remittances received by Cale88 Foods Corp., a company linked to Carpio, including funds allegedly originating from entities in China and Hong Kong. Prosecutors argued that these transactions merit closer examination.
The defense challenged the significance of the AMLC findings, emphasizing that suspicious transaction reports are monitoring tools and do not by themselves prove wrongdoing. Buenaventura acknowledged that such reports require further investigation before any conclusions can be drawn.
Attention later shifted to tax and corporate records. BIR officials testified on income declarations and ownership filings, including testimony that the agency had no record of a reported sale of Carpio’s stake in Cale88 Foods Corp., an issue prosecutors linked to asset disclosures.
To cap the week’s presentation, forensic financial analyst Alexander Cabrera summarized the prosecution’s financial case, concluding that Duterte allegedly possessed about P817.87 million in unexplained wealth, including more than P207 million in allegedly undeclared cash and bank holdings. Prosecutors described the testimony as the culmination of their Article II evidence.
The defense rejected Cabrera’s conclusions, arguing that the analysis relies on assumptions and incomplete interpretations of financial records. Duterte’s lawyers maintain that legitimate business interests, family assets, and other lawful sources of funds have not been fully considered.
Beyond the financial evidence, constitutional issues continue to attract attention. Senators Bong Go and Robin Padilla have asked the Supreme Court to review the Senate impeachment court’s ruling on the number of votes required for conviction. They argue the Constitution requires a fixed threshold of 16 votes, while supporters of the ruling contend the required two-thirds may be computed based on senators eligible to participate. Notably , the SC dismissed an earlier petition on different procedural grounds, namely lack of legal standing and prematurity.
A separate dispute concerns the evidentiary value of Commission on Audit findings on confidential funds. The Commission on Audit (COA) has affirmed with finality the disallowance of ₱73.287 million in confidential funds spent by the Office of the Vice President (OVP) under Vice President Sara Duterte in December 2022. Duterte’s camp argues that audit findings remain subject to review and should not automatically be treated as proof of misconduct, while prosecutors maintain that COA reports deserve substantial weight.
As the trial advances, three battles are unfolding simultaneously: the prosecution’s attempt to prove unexplained wealth, the debate over the legal weight of audit findings, and the constitutional question of how conviction votes should be counted. Together, these issues are transforming the impeachment trial into a broader test of constitutional interpretation, accountability, and due process./PN
