An official from the Philippine National Police (PNP) Firearms and Explosives Office told the Senate impeachment court that Vice President Sara Duterte and Atty. Manases “Mans” Carpio owned firearms amounting P7 million.

Police Major Joericson Sangalang said that the amounts were based on a “market survey” and in consideration of a total of 51 firearms between the Duterte-Carpio couple ranging from pistols, all of which were supposedly purchased based on their records.

Asked about the gun license that both individuals possessed, Sangalang said that the PNP had issued a Type 5 License to Own and Possess Firearms, allowing them to possess more than 15 firearms.

As for the weapons Duterte did have, the official said that Duterte had 13 pistols, two revolvers, a shotgun, and five rifles, three of which were Class-A light weapons.

Sangalang stated that based on Republic Act 10591, only law enforcement agencies were allowed to own Class-A light weapons. He noted, however, that any individual that owned such firearms before the law was implemented in 2013 were excluded from the restriction.

Firearms could be declared under personal properties

Prior to the presentation of the witness from the PNP, the defense and some senator-judges questioned the need to present Sangalang as they claimed that the amounts were irrelevant when it came to the prosecution’s case on unexplained wealth.

Senator Erwin Tulfo and Senator Tito Sotto raised similar concerns with regards to public officials owning guns, noting that there were many Filipinos that possessed firearms and that there was no line item in the Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) for guns.

Sotto, for his part, explained that he had just indicated the amounts of his weapons under the “personal properties” section of the SALN.

“I have been reviewing my SALN also and I do not see anything there that says guns,” the senator said.

Senator Juan Miguel “Migz” Zubiri, on the other hand, expressed that he did not see any violation if the Vice President were to do a similar practice to his colleagues.

“We’re looking for the bigger evidence that they want to present, if any, like Senator Lacson said, the big fireworks became small,” Zubiri explained.

In consideration of the perspectives of senator-judges, presiding officer Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero admitted that he was leaning towards “excluding the witness” given the lack of a requirement to declare firearms as a separate item in the SALN.

Public prosecutor Rep. Ysabel Zamora, however, pointed out that Section 34 of the guidelines of a SALN state that “the personal property registered with the appropriate government agency but not limited to motor vehicles, boats, aircraft, and firearms shall be declared individually.”.

After a brief inquiry with Sangalang, Escudero would ultimately allow the prosecution to present Sangalang as a witness with a reminder to abbreviate the proceedings given the push back of senator-judges.

“We find this witness not as convincing with respect to ill-gotten wealth, as would be others, given not only the small value of this, but also given that as stated by senator-judge Sotto, these are not separately cited in SALN of other officials,” the presiding officer explained.

Unlimited weapons?

After the presentation of the prosecution, Senator Raffy Tulfo, who had similar reservations on the testimony of Sangalang, expressed his disbelief that any individual could own many high-powered firearms.

Given the PNP official’s explanation that people were allowed to own as many as they want given the licenses, Raffy urged the need for revisions on gun ownership laws.

“This is something that our lawmakers should revisit, the ownership of guns, probably you should only be allowed to own a certain number of guns. Otherwise, a gun owner may build an armory and hire goons,” the senator said.