Barbers: Prenup or not, evidence vs Sara Duterte enough to convict her

MANILA, Philippines — Whether or not there is a prenuptial agreement between Vice President Sara Duterte and her husband Manases Carpio, the evidence presented during her impeachment trial is enough to merit a conviction.

This statement came from impeachment prosecution panel spokesperson Robert Ace Barbers on Tuesday in a press briefing briefing at the Batasang Pambansa.

Barbers noted that while the team is eager to see if the defense panel will resort to such a strategy when the trial resumes on November 9, it will not diminish the strength of the prosecution’s case.

Article continues after this advertisement

He is particularly referring to the argument in Article II that Duterte that charged the vice president of violating the provisions governing the filing of Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN).

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

A prenuptial agreement is usually signed by couples before marriage, indicating what part of their assets, debts, and other financial matters do not become intertwined.

This agreement is in contrast to the common occurrence where marriage causes the couple to have communal properties.

“A possible prenup has been mentioned. But first, based on my understanding, if you have a prenuptial agreement, this is annotated in your marriage certificate […],” Barbers said.

“But it is also important that we give them a chance to present this so that we can analyze it,” he told reporters.

Article continues after this advertisement

“But again — even if, assuming for the sake of argument, that they have a prenuptial agreement — does that mean that the vice president is exculpated from the liability of violating SALN laws or for having unexplained wealth?” the former lawmaker asked.

“That’s another issue that the defense should address,” he added.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: Kapunan: VP Duterte, Manases prenup, if any, will face scrutiny

If a prenuptial document comes out, the former representative of Surigao del Norte said that the prosecution will examine this.

“The prosecution team will scrutinize the evidence that they will show. So we will check if it was done yesterday only or before they got married,” Barbers remarked.

Even on the off chance that Duterte’s lawyers claim that the vice president and Carpio have been separated as a couple, Barbers said this will still have no effect on their case.

“Still not enough, if that is what they will claim, because it is very clear that there is a violation done by our vice president on Article VII, Section 13,” he remarked.

According to Barbers, this provision “states that you cannot enter into into a business or any financial interest while you are sitting as the vice president, and that is very clear.”

The prosecution spokesperson was referring to a provision on the 1987 Constitution that prohibits sitting presidents, vice presidents and cabinet members from practicing other professions.

It also bans the same officials from “participating in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality.”

Part of the accusations against Duterte in Article II is conflict of interest as Gencorp Industries Inc., a company that she had business interests with, entered into contracts with Davao City.

These deals were sealed while Duterte’s brother – Sebastian “Baste” Duterte – is sitting as city mayor.

Mayor Duterte, one of the witnesses invited by the prosecution, said that he would have not allowed the local government of Davao City to enter into a contract with Gencorp, if he knew that his sister was part of it.

READ: Baste Duterte: If I’d known Sara in GenCorp, I wouldn’t have dealt with it

Vice President Duterte is also accused of receiving compensation from the Davao City government for supposed legal services, even if she was already occupying the country’s second-highest elective office.

READ: Duterte flagged for receiving compensation from Davao while she’s VP

Prosecutors have refused to comment on the strength of their evidence against Duterte so as not to violate the sub judice rule, but their spokespersons have expressed confidence in the case that they built.

Before the trial adjourned last October 13, the prosecution decided that they will only present Article II or unexplained wealth allegations.

The panel dropped three other articles — Article I or the alleged confidential fund misuse; Article III or the supposed bribery of Department of Education officials; and Article IV or the grave threats against ranking officials.

READ: Article II’s essence: Sara plays simple but numbers won’t lie — Diokno 

On October 14, Barbers himself said that while dropping three out of four articles of impeachment against Duterte is a huge risk, it also shows the group’s confidence.

He concluded that the entire case will now rely on the strength of Article II. 

If Duterte is convicted based on Article II, or the allegation that she has unexplained wealth and that these were not declared in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, she will be removed from her post.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

The court can also declare that she is perpetually barred from holding public office. /apl