Spousal assets are fair game in graft probes – ex-justice

By Francis Allan L. Angelo

MANILA – A public official cannot simply hide behind a spouse’s private income or separate bank accounts to deflect allegations of unexplained or ill-gotten wealth, retired Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang told the Senate impeachment court on Monday, directly countering Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense that investigators cannot look into the assets of her husband.

Testifying on Day 24 of the impeachment trial as a witness called by the House prosecution panel, Cabotaje-Tang affirmed that authorities can investigate the assets of a government official’s spouse and children, invoking Section 8 of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

“The properties in the name of other persons and even the spouse and the children may be considered in determining whether the official has unlawfully [acquired wealth],” Cabotaje-Tang told the court under examination by Rep. Chel Diokno of the House prosecution panel.

The former presiding justice of the anti-graft court also cited the Supreme Court case of Republic vs. Rabusa, emphasizing that the law scrutinizes spousal assets precisely “to prevent concealment.”

Addressing questions from Senate President Win Gatchalian on how unexplained wealth is disguised, Cabotaje-Tang cautioned that officials frequently deploy “dummies or nominees or even proxies po. Or the assets are registered in the name of or names of other people.”

To pierce through those arrangements, Cabotaje-Tang cited Heirs of Ligot v. Sandiganbayan, stating that investigators determine whether the relative or spouse possessed genuine independent purchasing power.

“Ang determinant po dyan… according to the Supreme Court is: Ito bang mga taong ito, yung asawa-anak o yung ibang tao, were they financially capable to lawfully acquire those assets?” Cabotaje-Tang said. “Kung wala silang kapasidad na bilhin yun in their independent capacity, then that will be traceable yung acquisition na yun doon sa public official. Then that asset will be attributed as asset of the public official.”

Her appearance opened a new phase of the trial. The impeachment court began hearing Article II on Duterte’s alleged unexplained wealth on Monday, with Diokno offering the retired justice’s testimony to give the court and the public a framework for the bank, tax, and corporate records the prosecution intends to present in the coming days.

Day 24 marks the start of the third of four articles in the prosecution’s order of presentation, with only Article III on alleged bribery left after this.

Cabotaje-Tang’s testimony bears directly on one of the core defenses of Duterte in the impeachment trial, as her lawyers argue that the court cannot look into the bank accounts of her husband, lawyer Manases “Mans” Carpio, because he is a private citizen and not an impeachable officer.

The Anti-Money Laundering Council previously reported that PHP 6.77 billion worth of transactions were coursed through the bank accounts of Duterte and Carpio, including PHP 2.99 billion linked to the Vice President’s husband.

When Diokno asked whether government officials must declare spousal assets in their Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN), Cabotaje-Tang confirmed that they must, unless these assets are covered by a prenuptial agreement, which Duterte and Carpio do not have.

“Ayon sa batas, kailangan din isama yung mga ari-arian ng asawa,” she said, citing Abid-Babano vs. Executive Secretary. “If the spouses had a complete separation of property or property relations before the marriage, then the property of the spouse of the official need not be included.”

Cabotaje-Tang’s testimony also took direct aim at Duterte’s explanation for declaring “zero cash on hand or in banks” in her SALNs from 2019 to 2024.

She rejected the practice of lumping assets into broad categories in wealth declarations, as admitted by Atty. Michael Poa, one of the Vice President’s lawyers.

Citing Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, Cabotaje-Tang said that “cash on hand and cash in bank, they must be specifically declared in the SALN.”

She even warned that lumping different asset types together “is against the provision of Section 8 of [R.A.] 6713.”

The defense had tried to keep her off the stand. Defense counsel Mark Vinluan objected that she was a surprise witness not among the 15 listed for Article II, but Presiding Officer Sen. Francis Escudero ruled that the pre-trial order allowed the prosecution to present additional or substitute witnesses when circumstances warranted, and noted that the court had already issued a subpoena for her.

On cross-examination, Vinluan turned to her political neutrality, asking whether she harbored any opposition to former President Rodrigo Duterte after noting that she had sought appointment to the Supreme Court during his administration but was not selected.

“My testimony is not for sale,” Cabotaje-Tang replied, maintaining that she has always been apolitical.