Surge in VP Sara’s net worth raises suspicions—solons

A monitor shows numbers reflecting the net worth of Vice President Sara Duterte over the years as Senate President Win Gatchalian and Impeachment Court Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero hear the case on her alleged unexplained wealth on September 15, 2026. (Courtesy: Senate of the Philippines)

Prosecutors pointed out the P91-million increase in Vice President Sara Duterte’s net worth over an 18-year period which were disclosed by the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) during the 25th day of the Senate impeachment trial.

Meanwhile, Deputy Speaker Paolo Ortega V and Manila Rep. Bienvenido Abante Jr. also noted that Duterte’s declared net worth must be cross-checked against her legitimate income and business interests.

Focusing on Article II, which alleged unexplained wealth and failure to disclose assets truthfully, the prosecution aimed to establish a baseline of Duterte’s wealth history.

Lawyer Karen Batu, officer-in-charge of the Records Division of the OMB, served as the key witness for the prosecution led by lawyer James Bryan Ibrahim Alih.

Batu presented financial records and documents related to Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, meticulously cross-referencing declared wealth with bank transactions and corporate disclosures.

A notable highlight was the prosecution’s 10-point testimony offer, intended to authenticate and analyze Duterte’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) from 2007 to 2025, indicating a significant increase in her declared net worth from P7,250,497.00 in 2007 to P98,656,131.20 in 2025, a rise of approximately P91 million.

The defense, led by lawyer Justin Nicol Gular, opposed the inclusion of SALNs prior to Duterte’s vice-presidency, citing a legal precedent where only actions within her current impeachable term should be considered.

But Impeachment Court Presiding Officer Francis Escudero overruled this objection, allowing the admission of historical SALNs strictly for establishing a wealth baseline, clarifying they could not be used to introduce new charges outside her current term.

Escudero acknowledged the defense’s repeated objections to certain aspects of the prosecution’s case while allowing the examination to progress.

Senator-judges questioned the evaluation criteria for public officials’ SALNs, inquiring about distinguishing clerical errors from intentional concealment of assets.

They sought clarification on legal standards to determine whether an omitted asset in a SALN was excluded in good faith or to obfuscate wealth.

Senator-judge Vicente Sotto III asked Batu whether foreign currency is required to be declared in SALNs, but the witness chose not to respond.

Sotto directed the question to both panels, yet the defense also declined to answer and requested the impeachment court to rule on the issue.

Sotto further questioned Batu on whether she is aware if the SALNs submitted by officials include deposits in foreign currencies.

“Regarding the specifics… we do not check that,” Batu replied.

Escudero then cited a legal provision, stating that all foreign currencies must be converted into Philippine pesos.

At the prosecution briefing at noontime Sept. 15, the lawmakers questioned the change after Ombudsman records official Atty. Karen Batu read Duterte’s earlier Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) before the Senate impeachment court.

Batu identified declared a net worth of ₱7,250,497 for 2007. Reading the following year’s filing during the morning hearing, she said: “For 2008, the declared net worth is 18,493,616 pesos and 65 centavos.”

Duterte’s SALNs, plus her husband’s reported finances, indicated that their assets swelled by more than ₱11.24 million or 155.07 percent.

Ortega noted that the increase required examination of the income and businesses reported alongside the financial declarations.

“You need to cross-reference that with income—what was earned—and whatever business interests were declared, perhaps even before he became VP,” he said.

Asked why prosecutors needed to examine filings from Duterte’s earlier years in local government, rather than confining the presentation to her vice presidency. Abante said the earlier records provided a baseline for checking later declarations.

The discussion also covered a reporter’s question about an allegedly missing exit SALN when Duterte’s mayoral term ended in 2013.

Abante said financial reporting should remain continuous when an official leaves office and later returns to government service.

“There has to be continuity. That’s why we have a baseline,” he said.

Under Section 8 of Republic Act (RA) No. 6713, public officials must file their SALNs within 30 days after separation from service. The provision also requires declarations after assuming office and annual filings thereafter.

Ortega, recalling his own service in local government, described financial disclosure as a basic responsibility of public office. He said an outgoing declaration lets the public see an official’s financial position at the end of a term.

Abante also raised the disclosure of acquisition costs. Section 8(A)(b) of RA 6713 requires the declaration of personal property and acquisition cost, while the following subsection covers other assets, including investments, cash and stocks.

The briefing later turned to repeated gaps in cash declarations and questions about shares held in line with listed business interests. Batu said the 2019 through 2025 SALNs contained no declaration specifically identifying cash on hand or cash in bank.

Asked whether repeated omissions were deliberate, Abante answered: “Talagang (truly) willful.”

Ortega described the entries as red flags but said prosecutors would have to examine them further as the presentation continued under Article II, which covers allegations of unexplained wealth and financial disclosure failures.

“It’s still too early to draw conclusions, but watch how the prosecutors dissect that in the coming,” he said. — Joel E. Zurbano & Maricel Cruz

*****
Credit belongs to: www.manilastandard.net