Sara asset probe may snag spouse

The Senate impeachment court’s examination of Vice President Sara Duterte’s finances could inevitably extend to the assets of her husband, lawyer Manases “Mans” Carpio, because Philippine law generally treats property acquired during marriage as jointly owned, a constitutional law expert said Sunday.

Former Integrated Bar of the Philippines president Domingo Cayosa said the Family Code places most married couples under the regime of absolute community of property unless they executed a valid prenuptial agreement before marriage.

“Our law provides that when people are married, their property is governed by the absolute community of property. That means whatever property, income or money belongs to the husband also belongs to the wife,” Cayosa said in a radio interview.

He added that the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) law also requires married public officials to declare their spouses’ assets and liabilities.

“Under the SALN law, a married public official is required to include the assets and liabilities of his or her spouse. That is mandatory because of the absolute community of property,” he said.

The issue gained prominence after the Senate impeachment court on Thursday received the financial and tax records of Duterte and Carpio, together with documents from the Anti-Money Laundering Council, as part of the impeachment proceedings against the Vice President.

Questioned

Carpio questioned the release of the records, saying there are unresolved legal issues surrounding the disclosure of confidential taxpayer information.

In a statement Friday, he said he and Duterte would continue to respect the authority of the Senate impeachment court and comply with lawful processes, but maintained that the authorization for releasing their tax records should be examined under the Constitution and existing tax laws.

Carpio also noted that neither he nor Duterte had been issued a tax assessment or notice of deficiency by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, raising questions about whether the legal requirements for releasing their records had been met.

“The submission of documents to the Senate Impeachment Court is a procedural step. The legal significance, admissibility and evidentiary value of those documents are matters for the Court to determine in accordance with the Constitution, applicable law and the Rules of the Senate Impeachment Court,” Carpio said.

He urged the public to distinguish between allegations, procedural developments and factual findings, adding that constitutional proceedings are designed to resolve disputed issues through evidence presented before the proper tribunal.

Carpio has also filed complaints before the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office against members of the House Committee on Justice over the alleged unauthorized disclosure of personal and spousal bank records, arguing that the release may have violated the Anti-Money Laundering Act, the Bank Secrecy Law and the Data Privacy Act.

Prenup

Cayosa noted that spouses who want separate ownership of their assets must execute a marriage settlement before getting married.

“If you want your properties to remain separate, you must execute a marriage settlement before you get married,” he said.

Based on the couple’s joint SALN, Duterte and Carpio declared a net worth of P98.66 million in 2025, up 11.46 percent from about P88 million the previous year.

Their declared assets also increased by 24.72 percent to P122.8 million from roughly P98 million in 2024.

The Senate impeachment court’s receipt of the financial, tax and AMLC records forms part of the prosecution’s evidence, while Duterte’s defense has maintained that the legality, admissibility and evidentiary value of the documents must first be determined by the Senate impeachment court.

Duterte’s trial has moved from procedural disputes to the presentation of evidence on the Articles of Impeachment.

House prosecutors first presented evidence on Article IV, which concerns her alleged grave threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the First Lady and the former House Speaker.

Tax records

They then started their presentation on Article I involving the alleged misuse of confidential funds under the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education.

The court has also ruled on several evidentiary issues, including subpoenas for Duterte’s bank and tax records and documents from the Anti-Money Laundering Council.

President Marcos Jr. subsequently authorized the release of Duterte’s and Carpio’s tax records, which the Bureau of Internal Revenue formally submitted to the court.

The defense has consistently objected, arguing the requests violate constitutional and statutory protections and amount to an overly broad search, while maintaining that the admissibility and probative value of the records remain for the impeachment court to decide.