Repeated SALN omissions may be concealment – retired Sandigan justice

MANILA, Philippines — A public official’s repeated omission of required information from his or her statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) may be attempted concealment and constitute dishonesty, retired Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang told the Senate impeachment court Monday.

The House prosecution presented Cabotaje-Tang to outline a framework for allegation of the second impeachment article that Vice President Sara Duterte filed incomplete or untruthful SALNs from 2022 to 2024. Duterte has denied the allegation and the other charges in the impeachment case.

Article II also accuses Duterte of amassing wealth disproportionate to her lawful income and failed to divest or continued participating in businesses from 2022 to 2025.

Article continues after this advertisement

The prosecution said in previous proceedings that it would present the SALNs and other financial and business records for comparison before the court.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

Cabotaje-Tang served as the Sandiganbayan presiding justice from 2013 until her retirement in 2024. Before that, she spent about 31 years at the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), where she handled ill-gotten wealth and civil forfeiture cases.

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

Honest mistake or intentional concealment?

Senator-Judge Raffy Tulfo first asked what to call money or property that should have been listed but did not appear in a SALN.

“It’s an omission,” Cabotaje-Tang answered.

Article continues after this advertisement

She clarified, however, that one missing entry did not automatically prove unexplained wealth.

When Tulfo asked about an omission that recurred year after year, Cabotaje-Tang said the surrounding facts and the official’s intent must be examined.

Article continues after this advertisement

The retired justice said it must first be checked if it was “an honest mistake” or “an intentional concealment.”

She added that an official must be allowed to explain the source of property questioned under RA 1379.

If the explanation could show that the properties were legally acquired, the it would not be considered unexplained wealth, she said.

Tulfo then asked whether a lawfully acquired property that did not appear in the SALN still presented a problem.

Cabotaje-Tang said if the omission was due to intentional concealment then that would amount to fraud.

Asked when nondisclosure could become intentional concealment, Cabotaje-Tang answered: “If the omission is repeated, that can already demonstrate intentional concealment. So it can be a ground. It can constitute dishonesty.”

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

Senator-Judge Joel Villanueva then asked the witness what evidence should be considered in distinguishing a good-faith error from deliberate concealment. Villanueva cited the official’s explanation, supporting records, and response to the review-and-compliance process.

Section 8 of Republic Act (RA) No. 6713 requires public officials to disclose under oath their SALN, business interests, and financial connections. Section 10 requires designated reviewing bodies to check whether SALNs were filed on time, are complete, and in proper form. A filer must be informed of a defect and directed to correct it.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

The House prosecution said it would compare Duterte’s successive SALNs with financial and business records to support Article II. The prosecution alleges that the declarations contain missing or untruthful information; Duterte disputes the charge. /atm