Vice President Sara Duterte had billion of pesos in transactions that were flagged by banks to the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), despite declaring official income and net worth way below her bank records. For certain years, she failed to declare her cash on hand and cash deposits in her statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs).
These were among the revelations made on Wednesday at the hearing of the House justice committee on the two impeachment complaints against Duterte that it had found sufficient in form, substance and grounds. The hearing, the third of four, focused on her alleged unexplained wealth and failure to officially disclose her assets.
The AMLC also said it is looking into 18 financial transactions that were randomly picked by Mamamayang Liberal Rep. Leila de Lima from the sworn statement of Antonio Trillanes IV that he read aloud during the hearing. The former senator had long accused Duterte’s father, former president Rodrigo Duterte, of receiving money from a supposed drug lord, and had filed corresponding charges.
The discrepancy in Duterte’s bank transactions and SALNs prompted Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno to say this was the “smoking gun” against her.
“The Vice President should explain where these billions came from,” Diokno said, speaking in a mix of English and Filipino. “She has the right to explain this to the committee or to await the Senate trial. But this evidence can be considered a smoking gun or a firm basis to say there is probable cause to raise this case to the Senate.”
Continued absence
In her opening remarks, Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro said the committee that she chairs was “entering the territory of forensic truth,” through the SALNs provided by the Office of the Ombudsman as well as the AMLC report on the bank transactions of Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio.
As in the past two hearings, Luistro noted the Vice President’s continued absence and again extended the committee invitation for her to present her side against the allegations made against her, including the testimony of Ramil Madriaga on April 14 that he was her aide and bagman in her alleged misuse of confidential funds.
Duterte, as Luistro noted, has addressed only Madriaga’s claim regarding her law school record.
‘Numbers do not lie’
Luistro said Wednesday’s hearing would look into and analyze numbers.
“Numbers, unlike people…do not have motives. Numbers do not lie,” she said, adding that the data to be provided by the invited resource persons would “begin to tell a story that no press [statement] can rewrite or diversion can create…”
“Numbers speak with clarity that cuts through noise,” Luistro said. “If the Vice President does not want to attend the hearing, let us allow the numbers to tell the story. In this hearing, we will know the person behind the position—if she is a public servant or a private billionaire.”
Under questioning by Manila Rep. Joel Chua, lawyer Karen Batu of the Office of the Ombudsman’s Central Records Division confirmed Duterte’s net worth from 2007 to 2024, as well as the cash on hand and cash deposits she declared in her SALNs.
From a net worth of ₱7.250 million in 2007, Duterte’s net worth surged to ₱88.5 million in 2024.
But she was found to have missed declaring her cash on hand and cash deposits in her SALNs from 2019 to 2024. She was serving as Davao City mayor in 2019 and was elected vice president in 2022.
“E ‘di wow,” Chua said when Batu confirmed that “not even 5 centavos” was entered as cash on hand or cash deposits for that period.
CTRs and STRs
On the questioning of Bicol Saro Rep. Terry Ridon, AMLC Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura disclosed that ₱66.7 billion in 630 covered and suspicious transactions were reported involving Duterte and her husband from 2006 to 2025.
Duterte’s flagged transactions amounted to ₱3,772,760,972.48 in 314 covered transactions (CTRs) and 17 suspicious transactions (STRs) against her husband’s ₱2,298,466,740, which covered 317 CTRs and 16 STRs.
The inflow in the couple’s transactions was at ₱4.425 billion, and the outflow was at ₱1.55 billion.
For Duterte alone, the AMLC database showed that her accounts “generated a total of 371 large transactions and 30 suspicious transactions from Oct.13, 2005, to Jan. 28, 2026.” The accounts reached as high as ₱55.158 million. She was also identified as a beneficiary or counterparty in transactions involving other parties’ accounts from June 2006 to April 2025, with amounts reaching up to ₱7.44 million.
Buenaventura said banks had informed the AMLC about the covered and suspicious transactions involving the Vice President and her husband.
According to the Anti-Money Laundering Act, banks are required to report to the AMLC any covered transaction in excess of ₱500,000 within one banking day. At the same time, banks are to report “suspicious” transactions, regardless of the amounts involved, if there is no underlying legal or trade obligation, purpose, or economic justification; the client is not properly identified; and the amount is not commensurate with the business or financial capacity of the client, among others.
The AMLC reported “substantial financial activity over a longer period of time” in 417 transactions amounting to ₱3.9 billion from 2005 to 2026.
“Financial movements intensified between 2009 and 2013, with consistently high annual totals exceeding ₱400 million, including notable peaks in 2009 (₱704.93 million), 2010 (₱648.58 million), and 2011 (₱597.15 million). Activity gradually moderated from 2014 onward with annual transaction values generally ranging between ₱40 million and ₱83 million,” Buenaventura said, reading from his report.
He said a “moderate uptick” was observed in 2024, followed by a decline in 2025 and early 2026.
Ridon noted the yearly transactions against what Duterte declared in her SALNs, adding that the discrepancy between the two was glaring.
The bulk of the transactions was made up of credit memos (₱1.4 billion), debit memos (₱1 billion), and fund transfers (₱521.8 million), followed by time deposit pre-terminations (₱218.7 million) and miscellaneous transactions (₱209.2 million). The others were time deposit placements and payments (₱109.1 million each), withdrawals (₱62.7 million), and check deposits (₱48.3 million).
Bank secrecy law
Sagip Rep. Paolo Marcoleta and Quezon City Rep. Bong Suntay questioned the committee’s inquiry into Duterte’s SALNs and bank accounts.
Marcoleta, who is not a member of the justice committee, manifested that the SALNs were not attached to the original impeachment complaint, and insisted that the panel was conducting a “fishing expedition.”
Luistro told him: “It is our humble position that all actions and issuances of subpoenas on questions of the SALNs are in accordance with the rules of impeachment, the Constitution, and decisions of the Supreme Court.”
Suntay, on the other hand, raised the possibility of the committee violating the bank secrecy law by looking into Duterte’s bank accounts. He was reminded by Luistro that the AMLC report covered only transactions, and not bank accounts.
Diokno, in a counter manifestation, said the bank secrecy law provides that “all deposits are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature…except in cases of impeachment.”
He added: “And I believe the reason is very clear—because we are here speaking of the accountability of public officers. If we allow the bank secrecy law to become a tool that will hide key evidence from the committee, the impeachment process will become futile.”
Trillanes’ affidavit
Reading from his sworn statement, Trillanes repeated the allegation he made in 2016 that Duterte, her father, and some family members received ₱181.6 million from businessman Samuel Uy.
He said Duterte received ₱22.3 million; her father, ₱15.6 million; and her siblings, Sebastian and Paolo, ₱51.5 million and ₱38.8 million, respectively. Trillanes also said Rodrigo Duterte’s partner, Cielito “Honeylet” Avanceña, and their daughter, Veronica, received ₱53.2 million.
“From 2011 to 2013, checks were issued every six months, and at some point, they received them from interbranch transfers,” Trillanes said, responding to Akbayan Rep. Percival Cendaña’s questioning.
The former senator said he received the documents containing the information from a former supporter of Rodrigo Duterte. He said the joint account of Duterte and her father allegedly contained ₱2.4 billion.
After Trillanes’ testimony, De Lima randomly selected 18 of the Dutertes’ financial transactions from the annexes of his affidavit, and got confirmation from Buenaventura that all 18 are in the AMLC report.
Sealed box
Also at the hearing that lasted nearly 10 hours, the justice committee voted to defer opening the sealed box, presented by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and containing the requested tax records of Duterte and her husband.
BIR Commissioner Charlito Mendoza said the agency was presenting the documents with the understanding that Section 20 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) allows their examination on condition that it is in aid of legislation and in executive session.
The committee members said they were not holding a congressional inquiry in aid of legislation, but an impeachment proceeding.
Both De Lima and Cagayan de Oro Rep. Rufus Rodriguez said the proceeding is “sui generis,” or in a class by itself, which exempts the committee from the NIRC provision. Other members urged caution in the examination of the documents.
In the end, the committee voted 21-4 to defer the opening of the sealed box pending a decision. CS
