Cale88 got P319M from China, HK

Records from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) showed that Cale88 Foods Corp., a firm linked to Vice President Sara Duterte and her husband, Mans Carpio, received P319.32 million in inward remittances from China and Hong Kong.

The figure matched former Senator Antonio Trillanes IV’s recent claim that the couple received the same amount from the Chinese government, an allegation Duterte’s camp has vehemently denied.

AMLC executive director Ronel Buenaventura presented the financial data before the Senate impeachment court Monday, Day 33 of the trial, despite objections from some senator-judges.

“The aggregate amount […] indicated in our tabular summary is P319,326,770.41, Your Honor,” Buenaventura said in response to private prosecutor Mae Divinagracia’s query.

Of the total, P3.39 million came from Hong Kong and P315.935 million from mainland China. The remittances formed part of the summary covering three suspicious transactions involving the corporation, which were flagged for “underlying legal or trade obligation, purpose or economic justification.”

Buenaventura also testified that P4.4 billion in covered and suspicious transactions were recorded in the bank accounts of Duterte and Carpio.

Trillanes last week alleged that Duterte and Carpio received about P319 million from the Chinese government through Cale88, a banana chip company founded by Carpio and listed in Duterte’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth from 2022 to 2025. Carpio was an incorporator, director and shareholder from 2021 to 2024.

Trillanes also questioned Cale88’s reported sales, which rose from P23 million in 2023 to P150 million in 2024 after recording P20,000 in sales in 2022. He also flagged the company’s reported average monthly electricity bill of P8,000.

Trillanes further linked the pro-Duterte Tapang at Malasakit Alliance for the Philippines to alleged P150 million donations from the Chinese Embassy in Manila. The embassy denied the allegation, calling it malicious political manipulation designed to “smear” China.

Defense challenges records

Divinagracia asked whether the transactions constituted money laundering, but Buenaventura declined to make such a conclusion.

Defense lawyer Mark Vinluan opposed the presentation of Duterte’s bank records, arguing that they were protected by confidentiality laws.

Senator-judges Pia Cayetano and Imee Marcos likewise raised concerns that disclosure could violate the confidentiality provisions of Republic Act 9160, or the Anti-Money Laundering Act, which they said does not explicitly provide an impeachment exception.

Senator-judge Kiko Pangilinan disagreed, arguing that the confidentiality provisions apply to covered financial institutions and not the AMLC itself. He maintained that the impeachment court is a competent body that can compel disclosure of the records.

“It would be absurd that a private bank in an impeachment trial can be compelled to divulge bank records while the AMLA, which is the government entity that is supposed to address issues of criminal activity and money laundering, cannot be compelled to present AMLA transactions and records,” Pangilinan said.

Cayetano, Marcos and Pangilinan are primary authors of the AMLA.