Defense debacle

It’s the defense’s turn to present its side in the ongoing impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. The whole nation is curious about how the defense team justifies the questionable items in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs), as well as the discovery of assets and cash not declared in them.

Sara Duterte’s SALNs are at the center of the storm in the remaining article of impeachment being heard by the impeachment court. Article II accuses the vice president of unexplained wealth and failure to disclose assets. How did the defense fare in its first week of presentations?

Witnesses from Mindanao, mostly heads of offices in the Davao City local government unit (LGU), were presented by the defense team to debunk the accusations against Sara Duterte. The witnesses tried to prove that Sara Duterte’s declarations of assets in her SALNs were correct, that she did not receive double compensation, and that she held no business interests while vice president.

On the question of assets declared in her SALNs, Davao City Assessor Jaime Adalin said that a property bought by Manases Carpio, Sara Duterte’s husband, in Davao City matched the “residential lot” declared in the vice president’s 2024 SALN. The asset under scrutiny is the 379-square-meter property acquired under a transfer certificate of title (TCT) ending in 0775. Grilled by senator-judges, Adalin admitted uncertainty when presented with photographs of the property. “I was unable to check all of her properties because the subpoena only specified the title ending 0775,” Adalin said.

Discrepancies were also revealed in Sara Duterte’s Island Garden City of Samal properties. Engr. John Kenneth Enumerables, the city assessor, claimed that the 751-square-meter property matched a lot declared in the vice president’s SALN. However, it was noted that the field appraisal report and deed of sale identify the property as being in Barangay San Isidro (Kaputian), while the TCTs and the SALN indicate Barangay Matanos as its location.

Asked by the prosecution if the Samal property under TCT 142-2019013134 is the same property indicated in the vice president’s SALN, Enumerables replied, “I’m not certain.”

On the second day of the defense’s presentation, Davao City Accountant Vingelin Bajan took the witness stand. Bajan told the impeachment court that Sara Duterte did not receive double compensation. The PHP 64,194.72 check she received from the Davao City government in 2023 was a salary differential retroactively owed for 2020 and 2021 due to the implementation of the Salary Standardization Law.

Bajan’s explanation only deepened the mystery. The timeline is odd. Why did it take nearly three years for Sara Duterte to get her salary differential for 2020 and 2021? She was the mayor of Davao City at that time. Did all Davao City employees get their salary differential for the same period in 2023 or only Sara Duterte? If it was only her, how could the city government she led forget to include her in the release of the salary differential? Even if her differential was delayed, she should have gotten it before her term as city mayor expired. There was enough time for her to receive the money.

Did Bajan’s explanation exonerate Sara Duterte from the charge of double compensation? It did not, since she got the money when she was already vice president. Receiving a salary differential while vice president is double compensation since Article VII, Section 6 of the Constitution explicitly prohibits the president and vice president from getting any other emoluments from the government or any other source.

The testimony of Suzette Balucanag-Punay, corporate counsel of two Sara Duterte-linked companies, on the third day of the defense presentation placed Sara Duterte in a tight spot. Punay firmly declared that, based on the General Information Sheet (GIS) from the SEC, Sara Duterte had nothing to do with Gen Corp. This absolves Sara Duterte of violating Article VII, Section 13, which prohibits the president and vice president from directly or indirectly participating in any business. Punay saved her, so it seems.

The problem is that Sara Duterte stated in her SALNs that she holds shares in Gen Corp. If Punay is right, her testimony makes Sara Duterte a liar. If Sara Duterte is right, Punay is the liar. A SALN is a public document — subscribed to and sworn. Sara Duterte swore that what she wrote in her SALNs was true and accurate. If she lied in her SALN, as Punay testified, Sara Duterte does not deserve to hold the second-highest post in the land.

Worse for Sara Duterte, Punay, under intense questioning by the senator-judges and the prosecution, admitted that Sara Duterte had a “loose” investment in GenCorp, which later yielded PHP 2,142,369.14 for the vice president, broken down as follows: 2022 — PHP 337,500; 2023 — PHP 555,750; 2024 — PHP 612,419.14; and 2025 — PHP 636,700. Controversy erupted over the nature of the PHP 2.14 million — return of investment or return on investment. If it was a return of investment, why was the release staggered? If it was a return on investment, which is likely the case, Sara Duterte got a fat harvest. In an attempt to cover up her revelation, if not admission, Punay lamely told the impeachment court the money was a “return of capital.”

In another admission, Punay also informed the senator-judges that Sara Duterte had a 20% stake in a company operating a Chowking branch in Davao City while she was vice president. She later clarified that the vice president had no hand in its management or business operations from 2022 to 2025. Whether active or passive, it is clear from Atty. Suzette Balucanag-Punay’s testimony that Sara Duterte had business interests while serving as vice president. Sara Duterte violated the Constitution.

It is apparent that the defense’s opening performance is a debacle. Instead of saving Sara Duterte, her defense team only buried her in the quagmire of conviction.