Sitting presidents and vice presidents cannot bypass constitutional bans on commercial ventures simply by putting another person’s name on official paperwork while continuing to pocket the cash.
That was the clear-cut breakdown delivered Monday by retired Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang during her expert testimony before the Senate Impeachment Court.
Wrapping up the final three questions under the prosecution’s “Wealth Test” framework, Cabotaje-Tang walked House Prosecutor and Akbayan Party-list Rep. Chel Diokno through the legal boundaries governing Article II of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment case.
Presiding Officer Senator Francis Escudero reiterated that Cabotaje-Tang’s testimony established broad legal rules rather than analyzing Duterte’s specific assets, declarations, or corporate records.
Dissecting Indirect Ownership and ‘Beneficial’ Control
When asked directly whether top executive officials are allowed to engage in commercial business, Cabotaje-Tang delivered a straightforward answer: “Hindi po.”
She pointed straight to Article VII, Section 13 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution as the legal wall barring top officials from business participation.
Diokno then pressed for a definition of what constitutes indirect participation.
“Indirectly simply means hindi sila ang gumagawa, pero ibang gumagawa in their name. So, ibang tao ang gumagawa para sa kanila,” Cabotaje-Tang explained.
She noted that even if a proxy is fronting the deal, the public official remains the primary beneficiary. That distinction opens the door to the legal concept of beneficial ownership—where law enforcement looks past dummy names to identify who actually owns or profits from an asset.
“Ang beneficial owner ay yung tunay na taong nagmamay-ari ng ari-arian o ng interest sa corporation, although based on legal documents, ibang tao ang nakapangalan doon,” she stated.
Court officials emphasized that discussing beneficial ownership does not prove nominee arrangements exist in Duterte’s specific case; rather, it establishes the evidentiary standard required before drawing such conclusions.
Conflict of Interest and the Weight of the SALN
Cabotaje-Tang also tackled constitutional bans prohibiting top executives from holding financial stakes in government contracts, franchises, or special privileges, offering a basic hypothetical of a sitting president leasing personal property to a government agency.
She broke down the fundamental definition of a conflict of interest, “conflict of interest simply means na yung pribadong interest ng official ay salungat sa interest ng pamahalaan na kanyang pinagsisilbihan.”
Moving to public disclosure rules, Cabotaje-Tang made it clear where all assets, liabilities, and business connections must be laid bare.
“Sa kanyang SALN po, Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, financial interests at business interests,” she said.
Explaining why these declarations carry so much weight for citizens, she added, “ito ay nire-require hindi lang ng Constitution at iba pa nating umiiral na batas para malaman kung ang isang official ba ay yumaman habang siya ay nasa puwesto at kung paano niya na-acquire itong yaman na ito.”
Cabotaje-Tang reminded the court that filing a SALN is a serious legal act, not routine paperwork. Notarization converts the filing into an official public document, binding the filer to everything on the page under oath.
“Ang SALN ay isang notaryadong dokumento, and it is also an accountability framework. Kaya pag nag-execute ang isang official, he should do it by exercising prudence, caution and attention doon sa details na nakasaad sa kanyang Statement of Assets and Liabilities,” she said.
Concluding her testimony, the retired anti-graft magistrate emphasized that running a business or accumulating wealth is not inherently illegal. The key legal questions center on whether an official’s business dealings violate statutory restrictions, whether all required assets were properly declared, and whether tax filings align with official SALN disclosures.
Article II of the impeachment complaint accuses Vice President Duterte of failing to divest from prohibited business interests between 2022 and 2025, accumulating wealth disproportionate to her lawful income and submitting incomplete or untruthful SALNs from 2022 to 2024. Duterte continues to firmly deny all allegations.