Cabotaje-Tang: No need to declare money passing through accounts, but…

MANILA, Philippines — Former Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang has admitted that there is no need for public officials to declare as cash on bank the funds that merely passed through their accounts — or funds that were deposited but eventually withdrawn.

Cabotaje-Tang, however, immediately clarified during Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial on Monday that this does not mean the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) cannot investigate possibly covered and suspicious transactions.

Cabotaje-Tang said this after being asked by both Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo and Presiding Officer Francis Escudero what happens if a public official files his or her Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) but does not include money that were deposited but withdrawn before the covered period.

Article continues after this advertisement

“Papaano po ‘pag ‘yong isang opisyal, nagdeposit ng P20, P30, or P50 million sa account niya.  Pero after a few days winithdraw niya naman po.  Is that considered ill-gotten or unexplained, eh winithdraw niya naman agad, kailangan ba siyang tanungin, ‘Oy bakit may pera kang gano’n’ eh winithdraw niya naman agad, hindi naman tumagal sa account niya,” Tulfo asked during his interjection.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

(What if a public official deposits P20, P30, or P50 million to his or her account.  But after a few days, is withdrawn.  Is that considered ill-gotten or unexplained? When he or she withdrew it immediately, can he or she be asked, ‘Hey, why do you have this money?’ When he or she withdrew it immediately, it did not stay in his or her account.)

“Well, siguro AMLA na ang mag-aano d’yan po, kasi may mga requirements d’yan sa Anti-Money Laundering Act, regarding itong mga ganitong mga deposit na ito,” Cabotaje-Tang said.

(Well, maybe that is a matter for AMLA to address, because there are requirements in the Anti-Money Laundering Act regarding these deposits.)

“That will be a different matter; it’s not. It will not be included in his SALN kasi kung wala, kung at the time he is required to file the SALN, wala na ‘yon sa deposito niya sa bangko.  Pero that can be the subject, probably, of an inquiry by the Anti-Money Laundering Council,” she added.

Article continues after this advertisement

(That will be a different matter; it will not be included in his SALN because it is not there at the time he is required to file the SALN, because it is not among the funds deposited to the banks.  But that can be the subject, probably, of an inquiry by the Anti-Money Laundering Council.)

Moments after Tulfo’s interjection, Escudero asked the same set of questions to clarify Cabotaje-Tang’s answers.

Article continues after this advertisement

“In theory, Ma’am, kung may pumasok na pera at lumabas ng October, pumasok at lumabas ng November pero ‘pag dating ng December 31 wala ‘yon sa account mo, obligado ka bang i-declare ‘yon, in your opinion, sa iyong April 30 filing ng SALN?” Escudero asked.

(In theory, Ma’am, if there are funds that entered by October, entered and went out by November, so by the time that December 31 comes, it’s no longer in your account, are you obligated to declare it, in your opinion, in your April 30 filing of the SALN?)

“No more sir kasi wala na ‘yong asset na ‘yon or pondo, as of December 31 of that year,” Cabotaje-Tang replied.

(No more sir because that asset or fund is not there as of December 31 of that year.)

“And do’n na po papasok ‘yong binanggit niyong AMLC?” Escudero asked again, which Cabotaje-Tang confirmed.

(And that is where the AMLC’s role, as you mentioned, comes in?)

Some of the allegations against Duterte regarding Article II of the Articles of Impeachment involve unexplained wealth and her failure to declare assets and net worth in her SALN.

Among the issues pointed out during the House of Representatives committee on justice hearing on the two impeachment complaints against Duterte was her non-declaration of any cash on hand or cash on bank, despite the AMLC finding a total of P6.7 billion worth of transactions to and from bank accounts under Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio.

This includes a total of P4.4 billion in inflows and P1.5 billion worth of outflows.

READ: AMLC confirms suspicious transactions made by Sara Duterte, kin

During the congressional hearings, it was Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon — who later on was named a member of the prosecution team and co-team leader for Article II — who focused on the alleged issues with Duterte’s SALN.

Ridon said last April that there was an increase in the Vice President’s net worth that is not proportionate to her salary, noting that her net worth rose by over 1,000 percent from 2008 to 2024.

Ridon explained that Duterte’s SALN in 2008 showed a net worth of P18.49 million, while her net worth in her 2023 SALN grew to P77.50 million and P88.51 million for 2024 — representing a 378 percent increase from 2008 to 2024.

However, the lawmaker noted that if figures were based on Duterte’s 2007 SALN — the first year that she became a public official — the jump from a net worth of P7.2 million to 2024’s P88.51 million represents a 1,120 percent spike.

READ: Docs show VP Duterte’s net worth rose over 1,000% – Ridon 

Prior to her testimony on whether funds that merely went in and out should be included in a public official’s SALN, Cabotaje-Tang already stated that failing to separately declare cash on hand and cash in bank violates the law.

Cabotaje-Tang reminded the Senate impeachment court that under Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, “cash on hand and cash in bank must be specifically declared in the SALN” and cannot be “lumped with other personal properties.”

READ: Undeclared cash in SALN against law, VP Sara trial witness says

Cabotaje -Tang clarified that a public official may still be given an opportunity to correct deficiencies in a SALN through the review and compliance procedure under Section 10 of RA No. 6713.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

She, however, said that if the omission or deficiency is done repeatedly, it may be a sign of an issue. /gsg