Diokno: Tang needed to explain how unexplained wealth is violation

MANILA, Philippines – The prosecution on Monday defended its decision to present retired Sandiganbayan presiding justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang as an expert witness in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, saying she would provide the Senate impeachment court with a legal framework for understanding allegations of unexplained wealth.

In his offer for Cabotaje-Tang’s testimony during Day 24 of the impeachment trial, public prosecutor and Akbayan party-list Rep. said her testimony would explain when undisclosed or unexplained wealth, prohibited business interests and other financial dealings could constitute violations of public accountability laws.

READ: Cabotaje-Tang, Ombudsman exec among first witnesses for Article

Article continues after this advertisement

“The prosecution respectfully offers the testimony of Justice Tang to prove that she has specialized knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education, to testify as an expert on public accountability and for the purpose of providing this impeachment court with the framework for understanding and evaluating the financial and documentary evidence that the prosecution will subsequently present,” Diokno said.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

According to Diokno, co-team leader for Article II of the Articles of Impeachment, Cabotaje-Tang will seek to address six questions:

• When is an official’s wealth considered questionable?
• What if wealth or property is not named after an official?
• Is there a higher standard for public accountability for the President and Vice President?
• Can a Vice President or President do business while in office?
• What if a sitting Vice President or President has a business transaction with the government?
• Should the people see a public official’s financial status or assets, liabilities, and net worth through the Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN)?

Answering such questions, Diokno said, is needed because the impeachment court is a unique venue, as compared to judges in the Judiciary, senator-judges are not required to be lawyers.

READ: Ombudsman exec confirms Sara Duterte’s SALNs from 2007 to 2024

“Your honors, we recognize that in regular courts, legal experts are ordinarily not presented simply to tell judges what the law is.  Judges are themselves trained in law.  But that is not what we are asking Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang to do.  Hindi namin siya inihaharap upang sabihin kung guilty o not guilty ang Bise Presidente,” Diokno said.

Article continues after this advertisement

(Your honors, we recognize that in regular courts, legal experts are ordinarily not presented simply to tell judges what the law is.  Judges are themselves trained in law.  But that is not what we are asking Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang to do.  We are not presenting her to say that the Vice President is guilty or not guilty.)

“An impeachment court is constitutionally unique, sa ilalim ng ating Konstitusyon, kayo lang po at walang ibang court ang may kapangyarihang litisin itong impeachment case.  Unlike members of the regular judiciary, however, senators are not constitutionally-required to be lawyers […] But, your honors, the laws on public accountability, even among lawyers, are complicated,” he added.

Article continues after this advertisement

(An impeachment court is constitutionally unique; under our Constitution, you are the only court, and there is no other court which has the power to try this impeachment case.  Unlike members of the regular judiciary, however, senators are not constitutionally required to be lawyers […] But, Your Honors, the laws on public accountability, even among lawyers, are complicated.)

Diokno also explained that the Filipino people are watching and should be apprised of what possible actions regarding unexplained wealth constitute violations.

“This is not an ordinary trial, hindi po ito ordinaryong kaso.  Nanonood ang sambayanang Pilipino […] dahil pera nila ang involved dito.  Ang undeclared wealth, illegally acquired wealth, at pakinabang sa mga negosyo habang nakaupo sa pwesto ay yaman na dapat napunta sa pagtatayo ng mga classroom, kalsada, sa mga ospital, at sa mga pagbababa ng mga bilihin,” Diokno said.

(This is not an ordinary trial; this is not an ordinary case.  The Filipino people are watching […] because their money is involved.  Undeclared wealth, illegally acquired wealth, and benefits from businesses while being a sitting official are funds that should have been allocated to classroom building, construction of roads, hospitals, and bringing down the cost of goods.)

“Our people have a right to know what the law provides when it comes to unexplained or illegally acquired wealth, SALN, beneficial ownership, financial interest, and other relevant legal terms. That is why we believe it is important not only for the court, but also for the people from whom the authority of this court emanates, to hear the testimony of Justice Amparo Tang,” he added.

Defense lawyer Mark Vinluan opposed the testimony, questioning Cabotaje-Tang’s qualifications, neutrality and political background. He argued that she was not appearing as an amicus curiae authorized by the court.

“Substantially, Justice Tang’s presentation is likewise improper.  She is not testifying as an amicus curiae, as sanctioned by Section 23 Canon 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability or CPRA.  With all due respect to her, the court never intervened or gave its approval to her testimony on her expertise or field of specialization,” Vinluan said.

“Number six, being a legal expert is not an official designation and is quite subjective.  We don’t know the extent of her legal knowledge, her political background, whether she’s neutral, DDS, Loyalista or Kakampink, which is hardly distinguishable nowadays, Makabayan, or any other affiliation,” he added.

The matter was discussed extensively, with several senator-judges like Senator-Judge Imee Marcos questioning why Cabotaje-Tang should be presented when she has no knowledge of documents involving the case, while others like Senator-Judge Vicente Sotto III considered it a form of educating the court.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

Eventually, Presiding Officer and Senator-Judge Francis Escudero allowed Cabotaje-Tang’s presentation./dp