Ex-Sandigan justice: Unexplained wealth may lead to ouster from office

MANILA, Philippines — A retired Sandiganbayan presiding justice attested at Monday’s impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte that having unexplained wealth could be a ground for a public officer’s removal or dismissal from office.

One of four articles of impeachment lodged against Duterte accuses her of amassing unexplained wealth, failure to disclose all her and her spouse’s assets, and failure to divest her business interests since she assumed the vice presidency.

During his direct examination of retired Sandiganbayan presiding justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang, public prosecutor Jose Manuel Diokno showed her a provision of Republic Act 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Article continues after this advertisement

Section 8 of the law states that, “If in accordance with the provisions of RA 1379, a public official has been found to have acquired during his incumbency whether in his name or in the name of other persons an amount of property and/or money manifestly out of proportion to his salary and to his other lawful income, that fact shall be a ground for dismissal of removal.”

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

“In simple terms, if the requirements under the law are met to establish that an official has unexplained wealth, that official may be removed from office?” Diokno asked.

Cabotaje-Tang answered in the affirmative.

The witness elaborated on her answer when Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian later asked for more details about unexplained wealth.

READ: Witness explains unexplained, hidden wealth in Sara Duterte trial

Article continues after this advertisement

Gatchalian asked the witness to cite an example of how unexplained wealth could be traced to a public official if it was not declared in the statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN).

Citing a Supreme Court ruling, Cabotaje-Tang said this could be traced by examining the wealth of the official’s spouse, children, or other people.

Article continues after this advertisement

“Were they financially capable to lawfully acquire those assets? If they did not have the financial capacity to purchase them independently, and the acquisition can be traced to the public official, then the asset will be attributed to the public official,” she explained.

But how is unexplained wealth usually concealed?

“Well, a public official will employ dummies or nominees or even proxies po, or their assets are registered in the names of other people,” the witness said, still responding to Gatchalian’s query.

In the case of failure to declare the assets in the SALN, Cabotaje-Tang said the same could not be used to justify the official’s unexplained wealth.

“So the SALN should match with the explanation?” Gatchalian asked.

The witness answered in the affirmative, prompting the Senate chief to press if the discrepancy in the SALN declaration and explanation could be a ground for the official’s removal from office.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

“Well, according to Section 8 of RA 3019, if it is established that the person or public official has unexplained wealth based on the standards under RA 1379, that will serve as grounds for removal or dismissal from office,” Cabotaje-Tang said. /mcm