Sara Duterte impeachment trial Day 31: Baste Duterte defends P33M GenCorp contracts

Davao City Mayor Sebastian “Baste” Duterte on Tuesday defended P33 million worth of government contracts awarded to GenCorp Industries Inc. as he testified at the impeachment trial of his sister, Vice President Sara Duterte.

The prosecution panel called Baste to testify after the Vice President listed GenCorp as one of her business interests in her 2024 and 2025 SALNs.

Although he assured the public that the P33 million government contracts awarded by the Davao City government to GenCorp are all above board, the mayor said he would not have allowed such contracts to push through had he known about his sister’s ties to the firm.

“I would not have allowed it,” he said.

Mayor Duterte concluded after he testified that he is aware that the President and Vice President are not allowed to have business interests under Article 7, Section 13 of the Constitution.

The provision states that, “The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate 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 thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries."

Likewise, the mayor said he would know of any irregularity in these contracts, if there are any.

Later in the hearing, the mayor said that he has no independent knowledge of GenCorp and that its 19 contracts with the Davao City government worth over P33 million in the last five years “are not too much.”

Former Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, who was present during the proceedings, raised doubts on the mayor’s assertion that he is unaware of his sister’s GenCorp links.

"Kung pwede ‘yung sinasabi niya, lahat ng mayor sa Pilipinas, pwede makipag-kontrata sa kapatid sa kanila. They will just feign ignorance. So think about that. Ayun ang implication dito," the former senator told reporters.

(If what he's saying is allowed, then all mayors in the Philippines could enter into contracts with their siblings. They will just feign ignorance. So think about that. That's the implication here.)

In a separate news conference, the House prosecution panel said Baste’s claim that he was unaware of his sister’s links to GenCorp raised questions about why the Vice President did not disclose those links to him.

“The contracts were granted repeatedly and reached P33 million. Was the Vice President remiss in allowing these contracts to happen, considering that she declared financial interest in GenCorp and given the Constitutional prohibition on President and Vice President engaging in businesses? I’m sure it will be considered by the senator-judges in determining whether she violated the prohibition in this case,” private prosecutor Benjamin Tolosa, Jr. said.

Meanwhile, defense lawyer Michael Poa denied that he shared the sentiments of Vice President Duterte’s spokesperson Paolo Panelo that the new threshold needed for conviction was a foolish act.

Adverse ruling

Ahead of the mayor’s testimony, the Senate impeachment court denied the prosecution’s request for admission seeking to make the Vice President admit ownership of bank accounts, saying this will violate her right against self-incrimination, among other rights.

It wasn’t the only unfavorable ruling for the prosecution for Day 31 since the Senate impeachment court also admonished Tolosa over his previous statements on the impeachment case against the Vice President, which came close to violating the sub judice rule.

The sub judice rule is provided under Article 18 of the Rules on Impeachment. It states that the presiding officer and members of the Senate “shall refrain from making any comments and disclosures in public pertaining to the merits of a pending impeachment trial.”

The rule also states that “the same [prohibition] shall likewise apply to the prosecutors, the person impeached, and their respective counsel and witnesses.”

“With all due respect, I respectfully disagree with respect to that admonition because, as I’ve stated, there is no finding that I violated the rule. While I respectfully disagree, of course, I respect the authority of the impeachment court as an institution,” Tolosa said.

“Nonetheless, even if there’s no express statement that I violated the rule, there’s at the end an admonition to exercise greater restraint in giving public statements that may affect the merits of the case,” he added. —LDF, GMA News