The House prosecution panel will formally request an Office of the Ombudsman investigation into allegations that Vice President Sara Z. Duterte received over P2 billion in cash-filled suitcases, acknowledging that the newly surfaced claims fall outside the scope of her active Senate impeachment trial.
Former Surigao del Norte Representative Ace Barbers, serving as prosecution panel adviser and spokesperson, stated that the gravity of the accusations warrants an official probe, which would also provide those named a forum to clear their records.
“We will probably seek the intervention of the appropriate agency. In this case, this is the Ombudsman, who has to conduct the investigation and file the necessary charges if it merits the filing of such charges against the respondent,” Barbers said. “So, ito ay hindi dapat i-ignore, at ito ay dapat imbestigahan mabuti, palaliman ang imbestigasyon nang sa ganoon lumabas ang katotohanan.”
He added: “In fairness, doon sa mga inaakusahan, kapag lumabas ang katotohanan, eh, mapapawalang-sala at mapapawalang-duda ang ating mga kababayan dito sa ating inaakusahan.”
The allegations stemmed from Police Corporal Rodulfo Gracioso Jr., a former security chief for former House Speaker Lord Allan Velasco. Gracioso claimed in a National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) affidavit that he delivered cash-stuffed suitcases to Duterte over 20 times on Velasco’s instructions, totaling more than P2 billion. The affidavit also implicated former President Rodrigo Duterte and Davao City Representative Paolo Duterte.
Vice President Duterte denied knowing Gracioso or accepting money from him, stating her legal team is securing an official copy of the affidavit to pursue counter-legal action.
Addressing the credibility of the claims, Barbers noted that Gracioso’s past role under a former House leader closely associated with the Duterte family justifies a formal inquiry.
“Pangalawa, ito ay galing mismo doon sa information na ito ay galing mismo doon sa pinagkakatiwalaang tao ng dating Speaker ng House of Representatives na alam po ng ating mga mamamayan na malapit na malapit sa Duterte family,” Barbers explained.
He firmly rejected assertions that the prosecution panel orchestrated Gracioso’s sudden public appearance.
“Naku, wala. Wala tayong ganyan. Sana kung meron tayong ganyang nalalaman noon pa eh, dapat nailabas na rin ’yan at naisama ’yan dito sa mga Articles of Impeachment, o isa sa mga napupuntuhin natin dito sa Article of Impeachment,” Barbers stressed. “Dahil nga ito ay ngayon lang lumabas, dahil siguro merong witness na lumantad at nakonsensya, at gustong sabihin ito, at gusto niyang paimbestigahan ito.”
Barbers confirmed that the new allegations cannot be added as formal evidence under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment, as trial parameters were finalized during the pre-trial phase and encoded in the impeachment court’s trial order.
“Ang tinatalakay sa impeachment court ay ’yung napag-usapan dito sa impeachment pre-trial conference, at meron na pong trial order galing sa clerk of court, at ito ay mahalaga dahil ito ang magbibigay order doon sa pagtalakay ng mga isyu,” Barbers said. “Dahil ito ay hindi naisama doon sa mga allegations na inihayag ng ating prosecution panel, maaaring hindi na ito mapag-usapan.”
However, he emphasized that procedural limits in the impeachment court do not bar independent executive inquiries.
“Ngunit, it doesn’t mean that the government must ignore this issue, because it is a very important issue,” he stressed.
Barbers also dismissed claims from Duterte’s defense allies that the timing of the disclosure was calibrated to sway public opinion during the presentation of unexplained wealth evidence.
“Hindi naman natin puwedeng turuan siya kung kailan niya dapat ilabas ito. Siguro nakita niya na panahon na ilabas niya ito, dahil siguro nababagabag siya ng kanyang konsensya, kung kaya’t nilabas niya ito,” Barbers said. “It doesn’t necessarily follow that kung lumabas ito sa panahon na merong impeachment, ito ay ginawa ng prosecution. I don’t see any logic behind that.”
He reiterated: “Whatever information lumabas, whether before, during, or after the impeachment trial, eh, dapat bigyang-halaga ito ng ating mga ahensya ng gobyerno na in-charge dito sa ganitong mga klaseng issue.”
In related trial developments, Barbers disclosed that prosecutors requested a subpoena for former Senator Antonio Trillanes IV to testify regarding Duterte’s financial disclosures under Article II.
“Yes, we filed a request to issue a subpoena for former Senator Trillanes. Of course, sa Lunes, malalaman natin ’yan kung kailan ilalabas itong subpoena kay Senator Trillanes ng ating impeachment court,” Barbers revealed.
Additionally, the impeachment court issued a subpoena for Davao City Mayor Sebastian “Baste” Duterte to appear from September 28 to 30 regarding municipal contracts awarded to Gencorp Industries Inc., a firm listed in Vice President Duterte’s financial declarations.
“Last week, the subpoena was already issued, and he has not given any word whether he will attend or he will ignore the subpoena,” Barbers said, noting the court’s enforcement mechanisms. “Meron pong contempt powers ang ating impeachment court na bahala na po ang impeachment court diyan kung ano ang kanilang aksyon after the person ignores a subpoena, that is a lawful order coming from the impeachment court.”