Sara Duterte trial: Can a VP have business interests?

VEEP. Vice President Sara Duterte addresses an event in Pagadian City, Zamboanga del Sur, in late May 2026.

Sara Duterte Facebook page

Duterte's SALN indicates she is a stockholder of multiple companies, even though the Constitution bars the VP's participation in any business

The start of the unexplained wealth case against Vice President Sara Duterte put front and center her business interests, and why that obviously raises numerous questions.

The prosecution team called former Sandiganbayan presiding justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang to the witness stand on Monday, September 14, despite her lack of personal knowledge of Duterte’s impeachment case, to supposedly give the viewing a public a better chance to understand the legal concepts on public accountability.

After the prosecution survived an attempt by the defense team to exclude her testimony from the trial, prosecutor Chel Diokno discussed with Tang some important constitutional provisions involving the President and the Vice President.

They include:

• A portion of Article VII, Section 6: “The salaries of the President and Vice President shall be determined by law and shall not be decreased during their tenure… They shall not receive during their tenure any other emolument from the Government or any other source.”
• A part of Article VII, Section 13: “The President, Vice President… shall not… hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business.”

Diokno was careful in his line of questioning, especially after committing to presiding officer Chiz Escudero that he wouldn’t ask specifics about the case, only general principles pertaining to applicable laws.

But the discussion of these constitutional clauses is important because House impeachment hearings earlier this year already shone a spotlight on the businesses linked to the Vice President.

The Senate has ordered the subpoena of the financial records of companies linked to her and her husband Mans Carpio, namely:

• Metro City Chow Food Corporation
• City Hall King Chow Foods Corporation
• Gencorp Industries, Inc.
• Timesquare Bee Foods Corp.
• Great Jolly Times Food Corp.
• Carpio Lawyers (formerly Carpio & Duterte Lawyers)
• 888 Bistro
• CALE88 Foods Corporation
• Madayaw Fisheries, Inc.
• Mati City Ice Plant and Cold Storage, Inc.
• Amianan Shores, Inc.
• Geometry Security and Investigation Agency, Inc.
• Cabletow 88 Shipping and Marine Services, Inc.
• Davao New Royal Taipan Corp.
• Davao Emerging Taipans Corp.
• Davao Bounty Times Food Corp.
• SGT Fortune Horse Corp.
• CYKT, Inc.
• 3Kids Trucking Services, Inc.
• Zelta Matiem Salon

Her 2024 SALN declared that by end of that year, she remains stockholder of Metro City Chow Foods and Gencorp.

Republic Act No. 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, instructs public officials to divest their shares from any private business enterprise within 60 days from their assumption. It’s the law that Tang frequently cited when she was examined by trial counsels and senator-judges.

“It is your position that if you are president or vice president, you have to divest in all business? Even if it’s a sari-sari store?” Escudero asked.

“Yes, Sir,” Tang answered.

Diokno also made it a point to emphasize that the President and Vice President are held to a higher standard.

“They hold greater powers, so the prohibitions imposed on them are more stringent. Because of the powers they wield, there is the greater possibility of abusing their office,” Tang explained during Senator Ping Lacon’s interjection.

Tang also cited the 1991 Supreme Court decision, Civil Liberties Union v The Executive Secretary, which struck down an executive order by the Corazon Aquino administration that allowed Cabinet members, undersecretaries, and assistant secretaries to hold up to two additional positions in government corpporations and receive corresponding compensation.

The ruling upholds a stricter standard for the executive branch, drawing from the intent of constitutional framers who saw the need to restrain the president and members of the Cabinet in light of the historical abuses during the Marcos Sr. regime. – Rappler.com