Prosecution presents review of VP Duterte’s financial records

MANILA, Philippines — The House prosecution expects Vice President Sara Duterte to explain, through her defense team, the items, both cash and properties, that are not in her statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALNs) when her impeachment trial resumes on Nov. 9.

In a press conference on Tuesday, former Rep. Robert Ace Barbers, House prosecution adviser and trial spokesman, said the prosecutors have five sets of questions that they want answered.

He then presented a review of evidence already presented during previous proceedings involving Duterte’s money in banks, insurance, investments, firearms, business interests, and land.

Article continues after this advertisement

“Pangkarinderya ang drama, pero pangbilyonarya ang bulsa,” Barbers said, contrasting the family’s public image of leading a simple lifestyle with the big amounts in financial records questioned by prosecutors.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

Barbers’ central challenge was to match each questioned asset to the declaration in which it was reported, with an explanation for differences in amount, acquisition details, or ownership.

Following are the key points in his review.

What the SALN shows

Barbers stressed that a SALN is a sworn statement listing an official’s assets and debts — and that the net worth is the value of the assets after subtracting liabilities

Barbers emphasized that “Other Personal Properties,” shortened to “Others,” is one category within the declaration. It’s not the official’s entire net worth.

Article continues after this advertisement

That distinction underpins his response to the defense position he described: that cash and other assets were included under “Others.”

The prosecution’s question is whether the amount and the rest of the declaration actually account for the records presented.

Article continues after this advertisement

Bank money versus ‘Others’

For 2024, documents presented in court showed ₱22.24 million in money at eight banks compared ₱21.13 million declared under “Other Personal Properties.” It showed no separately identified cash and used ₱0.00 as the cash figure in the comparison.

Even if the cash were treated as part of “Others,” Barbers argued, the bank figure alone was larger than the amount in that category.

“If the money is under ‘Others,’ the question of citizens is: Why is this amount lower than those in the bank records?” Barbers said.

His presentation showed a broader chart displaying the same question from 2022 through 2025.

The chart, which has labels “Bank Money” compared to “Others,” showed the following differences respectively:

• ₱59 million compared to ₱13 million in 2022
• ₱71 million compared to ₱14 million in 2023
• ₱22 million compared ₱21 million in 2024
• ₱39 million compared ₱29 million in 2025

The detailed 2024 comparison used ₱22.24 million and ₱21.13 million.

Barbers asked the defense to explain how the bank records fit the declarations, year by year.

What the ₱81.84-million comparison includes

The insurance slide in Barbers’ presentation combined two amounts: ₱22.24 million in bank money and ₱59.60 million labeled insurance and investments, producing ₱81.84 million.

It compared that combined figure with the ₱21.13 million in the “Others” entry.

Barbers referred to payments for insurance policies and investment products, asking where the policy-related amounts appeared in the declaration.

His challenge concerned how those records were accounted for alongside bank money and other personal property.

51 firearms and the value declared

The prosecution presentation also cited 51 registered firearms: 22 attributed to Duterte and 29 to her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio.

It displayed estimated values of ₱2.18 million and ₱5.04 million, for a combined total of ₱7.22 million.

A footnote identified these as current market estimates, rather than confirmed acquisition prices.

Barbers asked whether the firearms were included in “Others” and what value had been used.

The question is where the registered items and their declared value can be found in the full SALN, rather than treating a missing separate label as the complete answer.

Business names and financial stakes

The business section distinguished naming a company from accounting for the value of an interest in it.

Barbers’ presentation identified Metro City Chow, GenCorp and Cale88 as having corporate records requiring explanation.

Duterte’s declared GenCorp interest and Metro City Chow holdings are distinct from Carpio’s connection to Cale88.

The companies’ money and assets are also distinct from amounts personally received by their shareholders.

Barbers asked where share values, invested capital, and advances to Cale88 were reflected.

He described Carpio’s advances as money lent to the company that he expected to be repaid.

Barbers stressed that the question that must be answered was where that financial interest was recorded, rather than whether the company’s name appeared among business interests.

It also called for scrutiny of the couple’s business involvement while Duterte was vice president.

Land: acquisition dates and prices

Barbers’ presentation identified properties in Matina in Davao City and Kembali Coast in Samal among the disputed land records.

It said the defense had pointed to matching assessed values, while prosecutors questioned differences in acquisition years and purchase prices.

“There must be a clear explanation from the defense or from the vice president why their records were like that,” Barbers said.

The panel asked how the titles corresponded to the declared properties. Matching an assessed value and explaining the year and cost of acquisition were separate questions in the presentation.

What remains for the defense

Barbers’ closing reminder was to examine the entire declaration when assessing the absence of a separate entry. Barbers asked where each asset shown in the records had been accounted for.

Barbers’ presentation organized the second impeachment articles into four themes:

• SALN disclosures
• whether declared income explained the wealth
• business participation while in office
• China-related remittances

Tuesday’s detailed review at the press conference focused on the first theme.

According to Barbers, a later briefing is expected to revisit sources of funds, with House prosecution spokesperson Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong presenting that part.

The China-related records previously discussed concerned remittances received by Cale88, a company linked to Carpio.

The question of company receipts is separate from what the vice president personally received or declared.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

“The public needs a clear and complete explanation from the camp of the vice president,” Barbers stressed. /atm