Sara defense yet to counter P817.87-M wealth claim — expert

The defense team of Vice President Sara Duterte has yet to directly challenge the prosecution's P817.87-million estimate of her alleged unexplained wealth, with its first week of presenting witnesses exposing gaps in its documentary evidence, an Ateneo de Manila University political science professor said.

Arjan Aguirre, assistant professor at Ateneo's Department of Political Science, said the defense had presented specific explanations for properties and financial transactions but had yet to offer its own financial computation to dispute the prosecution's findings.

“I have yet to hear something about kung paano nila ma-explain yung P817M na presented sa atin ni Tony Cabrera,” Aguirre said in an interview.

“If I were part of the defense, i-advise ko mag-general tayo kasi lakas ng impact ng Cabrera's statement. May sariling computation si Atty. Cabrera. They should have come up with their own computation as a counter to that P817M,” he added.

The prosecution had presented Cabrera's financial analysis to support its allegations that Duterte accumulated wealth that could not be sufficiently accounted for by her declared income and assets. The P817.87-million figure became a central point in the prosecution's case under Article II of the impeachment complaint.

Aguirre acknowledged that the defense had scored some points by establishing the existence of certain properties and presenting alternative explanations for individual transactions.

However, he said some testimonies raised more questions instead of resolving the allegations, particularly when witnesses could not produce documents to substantiate their statements.

He cited the testimony of Suzette Balucanag-Punay, a legal representative of GenCorp Industries and Metro City Chow Foods Corp., who said Duterte received P2.14 million from GenCorp as a return of capital from an alleged investment in a Jollibee branch.

Balucanag-Punay distinguished the payment from a return on investment, saying it represented the return of the original capital rather than profits or dividends.

But Aguirre said the explanation needed documentary support, particularly after senator-judges pressed the witness for proof of the alleged investment.

“May mga napuntos pero instead of clarifying the issues, mukhang nakapaglabas pa sila ng mga questionable. Maraming contradictions,” he said.

GenCorp payment questioned

Meanwhile, House prosecution panel member Atty. Chel Diokno said Balucanag-Punay's testimony could also bolster the prosecution's argument that Duterte had a financial interest in GenCorp, despite the defense's characterization of the P2.14-million payment as a return of capital.

“If wala naman siyang interest doon at kung hindi naman siya nag-capital doon, bakit babalik sa kanya ang capital?” he said.

He argued that the payment raised questions about Duterte's participation in private business while serving as vice president, which he said was prohibited under the Constitution.

“P2.1 million lang yan as compared to the P200 million na nalaman po ni Atty. Cabrera, it's still money, it's still income,” Diokno said.

The defense, however, maintained through Balucanag-Punay that the payment represented a return of capital, not profits or dividends.

But for Aguirre, the defense's preparation may have been affected by the withdrawal of three impeachment articles, leaving the unexplained wealth charge as the focus of the remaining proceedings.

The Senate impeachment trial resumed on 9 November for the defense presentation of evidence. The remaining Article II allegations concern Duterte's alleged unexplained wealth and undeclared assets, following the withdrawal of the other three articles.