Incumbent President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Vice President Sara Duterte could not legally engage in business, directly or through another person, while in office, a former Sandiganbayan presiding justice told the Senate impeachment court on Monday as prosecutors began presenting their case on her alleged unexplained wealth.

Former Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang cited Article VII, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution, which prohibits the president and vice president from directly or indirectly participating in any business during their tenure.

The provision likewise prohibits the president and vice president, during their tenure, from directly or indirectly participating in any business. It also bars them from having financial interests in government contracts, franchises or special privileges.

Asked whether the president or vice president could simply participate in a business while in office, Tang answered no. The prohibition, she said, extends to arrangements in which another person conducts business on behalf of the official.

"Indirectly simply means hindi sila gumagawa pero ibang gumagawa but in their name," Tang said.

Behind-the-name ownership

The former anti-graft court justice then explained beneficial ownership, a concept that could become important as the prosecution examines Duterte's alleged assets and business interests.

A beneficial owner, Tang said, is the person who actually owns property or has an interest in a corporation even if another person's name appears on the legal documents.

"Ang beneficial owner ay 'yung tunay na taong nagmamay-ari ng ari-arian or may interest sa korporasyon although based on legal documents, ibang taong nakapangalan doon," she said.

An asset or corporate interest registered in another person's name may therefore still raise questions about who ultimately owns or benefits from it, although such a connection would have to be established by evidence.

Tang also said the Constitution prohibits the president and vice president from having financial interests in government contracts, franchises or special privileges. She cited a lease agreement with a government agency as an example of a transaction that could raise a question under the provision.

Lacson presses distinction

Senator-judge Panfilo Lacson questioned why the Constitution specifically subjects the president and vice president to the business prohibition while other elected officials, including governors, mayors, senators and members of the House of Representatives, are not covered by the same blanket restriction.

Lacson pointed out that governors and mayors are also chief executives within their respective jurisdictions.

"Sa isang probinsya, ang pinaka-chief executive ay gobernador. At sa isang bayan o isang syudad, ang chief executive doon ay mayor," he said.

He also asked about the provision's application to the spouses of the president and vice president, noting that the restriction on the two officials themselves is "absolute."

Tang said the stricter constitutional restriction reflects the concentration of power in the country's two highest elected officials.

"Given the fact that the president and the vice president are the two highest officials of the land, there is the greater possibility of abusing their office," she said.

Wealth, not just business

Tang's testimony went beyond the constitutional business ban. She also told the impeachment court that unexplained wealth can provide grounds for the removal of a public official under existing anti-corruption laws, while stressing that a legal presumption that property was unlawfully acquired is not itself a criminal conviction.

Tang cited Republic Act No. 1379, which covers the forfeiture of property allegedly unlawfully acquired by public officials, and Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

She said the law allows a presumption that property was unlawfully acquired when its value is manifestly disproportionate to an official's salary and other lawful income.

“If it is shown that an official acquired property that is grossly or manifestly disproportionate to his salary, lawful income and income from lawfully acquired properties, it is presumed to have been unlawfully acquired. This presumption, however, is rebuttable,” Tang said.

“This means that if a public official can satisfactorily explain how he or she lawfully acquired those properties, that presumption will no longer apply,” she added.

An AMLC report presented during the House impeachment proceedings showed P6.77 billion in aggregate covered and suspicious transactions involving Duterte and Carpio from 2006 to 2025. Of that amount, P3.77 billion was attributed to Duterte and P2.99 billion to Carpio.

Records presented during the House proceedings showed that Duterte declared no cash on hand or bank deposits from 2019 to 2024, while her declared net worth increased from about P55.6 million to P88.5 million during that period. 

“Based on the submitted SALNs, walang nakalagay na cash on hand or deposit,” Batu told the committee,” Karen Batu, SALN custodian of the Office of the Ombudsman, said during the House hearing.

Duterte has disputed the prosecution's interpretation, saying her cash was included under the "others" category of her SALNs and that her wealth came from legitimate sources.###