Vice President Sara Duterte’s counsel sought to establish that a retired anti-graft court justice testifying against her had an anti-Duterte bias, asking the witness about her political affiliations and past dealings with the Duterte family.

“No, I’m not,” retired Sandiganbayan Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang said when defense lawyer Mark Vinluan asked if she was opposed to the Duterte family.

Tang also denied being affiliated with the Akbayan party-list group, which is highly critical of the Vice President, and said she had “never been political” in her life.

Vinluan then asked if she was disappointed when then President Rodrigo Duterte did not appoint her to the Supreme Court.

“No, sir. That was the (President’s) exclusive prerogative,” Cabotaje-Tang replied.

Vinluan then questioned Tang about her connection to prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno, who had emailed her the subpoena requiring her to testify before the impeachment court.

Tang said she knew Diokno from their time at the Office of the Solicitor General, where they were adversaries in amparo cases. She denied having any political affiliation with him.

The former Sandiganbayan justice said she appeared before the impeachment court because she had been subpoenaed. She stressed that she would not have testified had she been offered anything in exchange for her testimony.

“My testimony is not for sale, sir,” Cabotaje-Tang said.

Cabotaje-Tang’s appearance was challenged as she was a late addition, leaving the defense unable to prepare for testimony that could shape how the impeachment court will view a trove of financial records.

The impeachment court, however, allowed Cabotaje-Tang to testify, saying the defense could challenge her qualifications and opinions in cross-examination and present its own expert witness.

“For the record, she is not listed in the pre-trial order as a witness and there is no reservation for a witness with her designation or background. So, for all intents and purposes, Justice Tang is a surprise witness, which violates fair play and is prohibited under the rules,” Vinluan told the court.

He said the prosecution’s 9 September notice gave only Cabotaje-Tang’s name, previous official function, and the general purpose of her testimony, leaving the defense without enough information to anticipate what she would say.

“By asking for her interpretations on legal principles, she is poised to make conclusions of law that only this honorable impeachment court is allowed to make,” Vinluan said.

Witness to provide framework

Diokno defended summoning Cabotaje-Tang to explain the public accountability framework.

“She is going to testify as an expert on the public accountability framework. With respect to the conclusions of law, she will not be making any,” Diokno said.

Cabotaje-Tang, he said, would explain concepts that prosecutors expect would become relevant as they present financial and government records, including how to assess wealth that does not correspond with legitimate income, indirect property ownership, restrictions on public officials participating in business, and the purpose of the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN).

He said the prosecutors wanted Cabotaje-Tang to testify first so the court and the public could better understand the documents that would follow.

“In the coming days, there will be many documents that the court and the public will see — financial records, bank records, records from government agencies — and it will be easier to understand why these things happened. That is why we want her to testify first,” Diokno said.

Court rejects defense bid

The senator-judges were divided over whether Cabotaje-Tang should testify at this stage of the trial. Sen. Raffy Tulfo questioned the need for her testimony, noting that she had no personal knowledge of the unexplained wealth allegations, and suggested that she testify last.

Sen. Imee Marcos questioned the prosecution’s description of Cabotaje-Tang as a “disinterested” witness, noting that the subpoena was served at Diokno’s office at the Batasang Pambansa. Diokno said the arrangement was made for Tang’s security and privacy.

Sen. Risa Hontiveros and Sen. Tito Sotto favored hearing Cabotaje-Tang’s testimony, noting that the defense could cross-examine her and present its own experts.

The court later rejected the defense request to exclude Cabotaje-Tang. It allowed her to proceed, pointing to a provision in the pre-trial order reserving the right to present additional or substitute witnesses as circumstances warrant.

The State’s right to recover unlawfully acquired wealth from public officials does not expire even if the assets were accumulated years earlier, Cabotaje-Tang told the impeachment court.

Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo raised the issue through a hypothetical public official who started as a barangay kagawad, later became mayor, and whose questionable wealth was discovered about 15 years after it was supposedly accumulated.

“Is there a time limit if, after 15 years, wealth seen in his SALN raises the question: Wait, mayor, where did this come from? Is there a time limit or none?” Tulfo asked.

Cabotaje-Tang said the Constitution provided otherwise. “The State’s right to pursue illegally acquired wealth is not limited. There is no period of limitation,” she said.

Article XI, Section 15 of the Constitution provides that the State’s right to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees, or by their nominees or transferees, shall not be barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel.

The House prosecution panel had earlier maintained that an unexplained wealth inquiry requires the examination of a public official’s broader financial history rather than isolated snapshots of assets.

The Senate court has since allowed access to Duterte’s bank, tax, and Anti-Money Laundering Council records after finding them to be relevant to Article II.

No lump sums

Cash on hand and bank deposits must be separately declared in a public official’s SALN and cannot be folded into other personal properties, Cabotaje-Tang said.

“Cash on hand and cash in bank must be specifically declared in the SALN. They cannot be lumped together with other personal properties,” she told Senator-judge Joel Villanueva.

Asked whether grouping cash with other assets would merely be unusual, Cabotaje-Tang said it would go against Section 8 of Republic Act 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

“I will not consider it unusual, but it is against the provision of Section 8 of RA 6713,” she said.