Ex-IBP chief seeks answers on Sara’s SALN discrepancies

Former Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) president Antonio Pido said the defense of Vice President Sara Duterte must explain the substantial discrepancies between her declared wealth and income and the figures reflected in her tax records, citing constitutional restrictions on public officials and legal requirements for financial disclosure.

He said the differences raised questions about Duterte’s financial declarations, although he stressed that it would be up to her defense team to explain the figures presented during the impeachment proceedings.

Pido said the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) law requires public officials to disclose their assets, liabilities and income to establish their net worth, while tax laws generally require taxpayers to declare all taxable income.

“The SALN law requires the declaration of all income, assets and liabilities,” Pido said, adding that the law on taxation covers income from various sources.

The prosecution could strengthen its presentation by bringing in a forensic financial analyst to examine the records and explain the discrepancies in terms the public could understand, Pido said.

He also cited constitutional restrictions prohibiting the president and vice president from engaging in other professions or businesses while in office.

Under Article VII, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution, the president, vice president, Cabinet members and their deputies or assistants are prohibited from holding other offices or employment, practicing a profession, participating in business or having financial interests in government contracts, franchises or privileges.

The prohibition was explicit and should be considered in examining questions about income earned while an official is serving in office.

Pido likewise cited the Local Government Code, which restricts local elective officials from practicing their professions during their tenure, subject to applicable legal provisions.

The discussion arose from questions about payments reportedly received by Duterte from the Davao City government while she was serving as mayor and, later, as vice president.

Pido referred to testimony concerning a Letter of Authority issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) in connection with the examination of the vice president’s tax records. He said he could not determine the precise purpose of the payments based on the information presented.

However, the defense should address the circumstances surrounding the transactions and explain any differences between the reported payments and the official declarations.

Pido also discussed the possible implications of income and assets held by a spouse, noting that the applicable property regime of a married couple could affect how their finances are treated under the law.

Under the absolute community of property regime, which generally applies to marriages celebrated after the Family Code took effect in 1988 unless an exception applies, property and assets may form part of the community estate, subject to legal exclusions.

He said a valid prenuptial agreement providing for a different property regime could affect the analysis. Any change to the spouses’ property regime during marriage, however, would have to comply with legal requirements and obtain court approval where required.

The applicable property regime would therefore be relevant in determining whether particular assets or income should be considered in evaluating the couple’s financial declarations, Pido said.

On the conduct of the impeachment proceedings, Pido described impeachment as predominantly political in nature, with legal procedures serving to help establish the truth and protect the rights of the parties.

He criticized what he considered an overly technical approach to the proceedings, saying the presentation of evidence should be understandable to ordinary Filipinos.

“Impeachment is 80 percent political and 20 percent legal,” Pido said, arguing that procedural rules should not be applied so rigidly that they prevent the public from understanding the evidence.

He said the central question was whether an impeachable official had betrayed the public trust, as alleged in the proceedings, and that the evidence should be presented in a straightforward manner.

Pido acknowledged that the defense was entitled to use all lawful means to protect Duterte’s rights but said the prosecution should also be given a fair opportunity to present its case.

He supported the use of a forensic financial expert, saying the analyst could organize the financial records and explain how the figures compared with the vice president’s declarations and reported income.

Pido said the objective should be to establish whether the evidence supports the allegations, rather than allowing technical arguments to obscure the issues being examined.

He also addressed the question of confidentiality surrounding financial records presented in an impeachment trial.

Bank secrecy protections have legal exceptions, including circumstances involving impeachment proceedings, and relevant financial records could be examined in accordance with applicable law and court orders.

However, Pido noted that the extent of disclosure would depend on the specific records and the legal basis for releasing them.

The Senate, under Article XI, Section 3 of the Constitution, has the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases. A conviction requires the concurrence of two-thirds of all members of the Senate.

Pido said senators should ensure that the proceedings establish whether the allegations amount to a betrayal of public trust, while allowing both the prosecution and the defense to present their respective arguments.