Retired Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang told the Senate impeachment court on Monday, Sept. 14, that the Constitution imposes stricter rules on the president and vice president’s financial engagements to prevent potential abuse of power.
“There is a greater possibility of abuse given their positions,” she said, citing a Supreme Court ruling in the case of Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary in 1991.
Cabotaje-Tang was offered as a witness by House prosecutors on Day 24 of the impeachment trial. They described her as a “disinterested party” as they started to tackle Article II of the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte.
The prosecutors alleged that Duterte amassed unexplained wealth, failed to disclose her assets, and maintained private business interests while in office.
When asked about the rules imposed on the income and financial interests of the two highest officials in the land, Cabotaje-Tang said these strict prohibitions apply to members of the President’s Cabinet as well as their undersecretaries and assistant secretaries.
Debate over witness
Before her testimony, Duterte’s lawyers opposed the prosecution’s bid to present her as a witness. But after a long debate that saw senators either for or against her testimony, Senate impeachment court presiding officer Francis Escudero ruled in favor of the prosecution.
House public prosecutor and Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno said Cabotaje-Tang’s 44 years of “experience, skills, and training” as an assistant solicitor general and later as Sandiganbayan presiding judge made her eligible to testify as “an expert on public accountability.”
“[Her]…decade of specialized experience can assist the court in understanding the legal framework in assessing the evidence we will be presenting,” Diokno said, adding that the impeachment trial and the case against the Vice President were both “not ordinary.”
He also underscored the importance of helping the public understand the case through her testimony, as it’s their money that was involved here.
Defense lawyer Mark Vinluan called “improper” Cabotaje-Tang’s appearance in court, noting that this was “the first time the Vice President is being confronted” with the retired Sandiganbayan presiding officer and her testimony given that she was not listed as a witness in the pretrial list.
“[Cabotaje-] Tang is a surprise witness and violates fair play and is prohibited under the rules,” Vinluan said, adding that she “infringes” on the vice president’s rights to “intelligently cross-examine her” and on her “constitutional rights to due process.”
He contended that the witness was not identified as an amicus curiae or a friend of the court and the impeachment court did not intervene or approve her testimony.
“We don’t know the extent of her legal knowledge, her political background, whether she is neutral, DDS, loyalista or Kakampink, which is hardly distinguishable these days…or any other affiliation,” Vinluan said. He moved to have her excluded as a witness.
Diokno, responding to Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo’s query, however, insisted that she will testify on the “public accountability framework of our country” and “will not make any conclusions of law.”
No questions on impeachment
Senator-judge Imee Marcos asked Diokno if Cabotaje-Tang would be testifying “on matters or questions” of facts of the impeachment case. The prosecutor said the witness replied in the negative and reiterated that her testimony would “provide a legal framework to the court and to the Filipino people.”
“She is a disinterested party. She is here because she was subpoenaed by this court,” he added.
Marcos suggested that Cabotaje-Tang testify as a friend of the court. She also asked why the subpoena to the witness was served at Diokno’s office if she is a disinterested party.
The prosecutor explained that this was done “for the protection of the Honorable Justice,” who may be subjected to online bashings later.
Reminding that the impeachment court was sui generis (of its own kind), Senator-judge and Senate President Pro Tempore Vicente Sotto III supported Cabotaje-Tang as a witness as it was good they could listen to the explanation of these laws.
“If I have money in the bank and I know where it came from, is it bad if I have lots of money?” Sotto asked.
Sen. Risa Hontiveros also supported the prosecution’s bid to present the retired Sandiganbayan official as a witness, saying her statements will benefit the impeachment court and the public. “I do not see any potential harm to the respondent,” she said.
After confirming with Diokno that Cabotaje-Tang would not be asked specific questions about the impeachment case, Escudero ruled in favor of the prosecution.
“Whatever she says is not binding on the court and her opinions are not conclusive,” the presiding officer said. The court, he said, would note the “continuing objection” of the defense team.
Public officer’s wealth
During her direct examination, Cabotaje-Tang said hidden wealth involves a public officer “owning a property but that it is not registered under his name but to another person.” On the other hand, she said, ill-gotten wealth is “wealth acquired through illegal means such as through bribery, misappropriation and malversation.”
Asked when a public officer’s wealth becomes questionable, she said it was acquired during the person’s incumbency and whose property is “grossly disproportionate to his salary, other lawful income and income generated from his legally acquired property.”
How can authorities determine if a public officer has unexplained wealth? The witness said this can be seen through the person’s statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN), which should be executed to be “true and accurate.”
She also said a public officer’s unexplained wealth could be detected through a lifestyle check and income tax returns, and through properties and assets of the officer’s spouse and children under 18 years old.
Vinluan objected to Cabotaje-Tang’s “personal opinion” and “interpretation of the law,” but Escudero said anything she would say was “neither conclusive nor binding upon this court.”
On Diokno’s query, the witness said a public officer could be dismissed or removed from office under Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 if found that the person acquired unexplained wealth.
‘Prima facie’ presumption
She acknowledged that once a public officer acquires property that is manifestly disproportionate to the person’s income, there is a “presumed prima facie” that it was illegally acquired. She added the law mandates a preliminary inquiry.
To a query raised later by Hontiveros, Cabotaje-Tang cited the 1991 Supreme Court ruling in pointing out the requisites of “prima facie presumption on unexplained wealth”: the respondent was a public officer who acquired the property during his incumbency, and it is grossly disproportionate to his lawful income.
Asked on this presumption, she said: “To make it easier, I believe, for the government to go after errant officials.”
Senator-judge Joel Villanueva asked Cabotaje-Tang about cash declared in the SALN as part of the total assets. She said that under RA 6713, “cash on hand and cash in bank must be specifically declared in the SALN.”
“It cannot be lumped in other personal properties,” she said. “I will not consider it unusual, but it is against the provision of Section 8 of RA 6713” and thus, violating the law.
But she said that under a section of the same law, a public officer is given the chance to review and comply by fixing it to ensure the data provided was “timely filed and in proper form.”
Duterte’s camp had earlier said that Duterte had not declared cash on hand and in bank in her SALN because these were lumped under other personal properties.
Credibility issue
As expected, the defense tried to question Cabotaje-Tang’s credibility as a legal expert on public accountability and tried to show her bias for the prosecution.
Vinluan noted that she was appointed by then President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III as a Sandiganbayan justice and later its presiding justice. He said that when she applied and failed to be appointed as a Supreme Court associate justice, it was during then President Rodrigo Duterte’s administration.
When the lawyer asked if Cabotaje-Tang was disappointed at then President Duterte for this, she replied in the negative and added that it was the former president’s “exclusive prerogative” to appoint officials.
“Are you anti-Duterte?” he asked. The witness replied in the negative.
Cabotaje-Tang also told Vinluan that she did not know the Vice President personally in reply to whether she liked her.
Asked whether she was “Kakampink” or the group identified as pro-Leni Robredo, she told Vinluan: “I’ve never been political in life. I’ve always been apolitical.”
She said she knew Diokno when she was still with the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and, in fact, they were “adversaries” during the writ of amparo cases before the Court of Appeals. She also has not met Diokno since leaving OSG.
Asked on whether she had met Diokno in other events, she said maybe once but could not recall when. Vinluan then presented a photo that he claimed included both her and Diokno. Cabotaje-Tang recalled that she was at the forum to speak on anti-corruption.
Diokno, meanwhile, said he was not in the photo, and he pointed this out to Vinluan, who later agreed but added that the former attended the same forum.
Asked by Vinluan whether she was promised anything for her testimony, Cabotaje-Tang said: “No, sir, I will never testify if I was ever offered anything material or otherwise. My testimony is not for sale, sir.”
Vinluan asked the witness if she was vying for an ambassadorial post. She denied this and said she was retired and “I want to enjoy my retirement.”
2 prosecution witnesses
House prosecutors will present two witnesses on Tuesday in relation to Article II, where they aimed to present evidence on the following points:
• Duterte’s 2024 net worth reached ₱88.5 million or about ₱50 million more than her estimated lawful earnings of ₱30 million from 2007–2024
• The Anti-Money Laundering Council flagged a total of ₱6.67 billion in covered suspicious transactions involving Duterte and her husband, Mans Carpio, from 2007–2024, including ₱4.4 billion in cash inflows
• She declared “none” in cash on hand/in bank from 2019–2024
• She failed to divest, retaining a 20% stake and board positions in Metro City Chow Foods Corp. while serving as Vice President
• She failed to fully disclose properties, financial assets, liabilities and business interests in her SALNs from 2022–2024. CS
