Escudero sides with prosecution after defense tries to bar ex-Sandiganbayan justice

TRIAL. Retired Sandiganbayan presiding justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang takes the witness stand in the trial of Vice President Sara Duterte on September 14, 2026.

Senate screenshot

The defense team argues that the presentation of Cabotaje-Tang as a 'surprise witness' by the prosecution infringes on Duterte's right to due process

AT A GLANCE

• The defense team in Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial opposed the prosecution's attempt to call retired justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang as a witness, arguing it violated due process and her relevance to the case.
• Despite the defense's objections, the court allowed Cabotaje-Tang to testify, emphasizing that her insights could contribute to public understanding of legal accountability.
• During her testimony, Cabotaje-Tang stated that public officials should divest from businesses.

This is AI-generated. Read the article for full context. Report any errors.

MANILA, Philippines – The defense team in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte fought to prevent the prosecution panel from presenting a former anti-graft court justice as a witness, but lost the morning battle to a court that wanted to hear what she had to say.

The legal skirmish took up the first hour of the Senate proceedings on Monday, September 14, as the prosecution team kicked off its unexplained wealth case against the Vice President by calling retired Sandiganbayan presiding justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang to the witness stand.

Defense lawyer Mark Vinluan argued that Cabotaje-Tang was a “surprise” witness whom the prosecution did not list in their pre-trial brief, and the move infringes on Duterte’s right to due process.

Vinluan also pointed out that Cabotaje-Tang did not have a direct link to the case — a point also echoed by senator-judges Raffy Tulfo and Imee Marcos.

“Justice Tang’s presentation is likewise improper. She’s not testifying as an amicus curiae… the court never intervened or gave its approval to her testimony on her expertise or field of specialization. For this purpose, she is not a friend of the court,” Vinluan argued.

“I am confused why this witness is here because she won’t confirm documents or provide help in (determining) the facts,” Marcos added.

Diokno, however, insisted that Cabotaje-Tang’s testimony sheds light on the legal framework on public accountability, a subject that will benefit the public.

“Real transparency is not just about livestreaming this trial. Real transparency means the people can understand what is happening,” Diokno said.

“Isn’t the impeachment court sui generis (in nature)? There are things we have to know. Maybe the presentation will be educational in purpose,” Sotto added, siding with the prosecution.

Escudero ruled in favor of the prosecution, saying that its pre-trial brief offered reserve witnesses who are unnamed.

He also noted that Cabotaje-Tang’s testimony is a non-binding legal opinion that the defense team can cross-examine during its turn.

“You are also not prohibited from presenting your own witness, counsel, to dispute the testimony of justice Cabotaje-Tang,” Escudero told the defense team.

Testimony

During her testimony, Cabotaje-Tang answered general questions that apply to the situation of a Vice President.

Cabotaje-Tang took the position that the President and the Vice President should divest from all businesses.

House impeachment hearings in April pointed out the Vice President’s ties to numerous businesses, including Metro City Chow Food Corporation, where she remains a stockholder.

Cabotaje-Tang also cited Republic Act 6713 to say that cash on hand and cash in bank should be specified in an official’s Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN).

The Anti-Money Laundering Council previously reported P6.7 billion in total bank transactions flowed through her and her husband Mans Carpio’s bank accounts, even though her declared net worth only averaged P42 million and peaked at P88 million.

Vice President Sara Duterte’s legal team earlier said her SALNs had minimal to zero cash in hand and cash on bank declarations because they were lodged in the “others” category of her SALN.

Cabotaje-Tang, however, said she believes that an official does not necessarily need to declare in their SALN funds that were immediately withdrawn from their bank account. – Rappler.com