𝐃𝐀𝐘 𝟑𝟎 𝐎𝐅 𝐕𝐏 𝐃𝐔𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐓𝐄 𝐈𝐌𝐏𝐄𝐀𝐂𝐇𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐀𝐋

By Attorney Karlos Ysagani Zarate

𝐒𝐔𝐌𝐌𝐀𝐑𝐘 | 𝐒𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟐𝟖, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔: 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐝

𝐃𝐚𝐲 𝟑𝟎 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐚 𝐬𝐦𝐨𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐠𝐮𝐧.

It was about the paper trail—and whether the pieces of that trail, taken together, could prove what Article II alleges against Vice President Sara Duterte: unexplained wealth, non-disclosure of assets and failure to divest from business interests.

There were no dramatic revelations. Instead, the Senate spent much of the day poring over procurement records, SALNs, SEC filings and personal property. On the surface, it was a day for accountants, auditors, lawyers and records custodians.

But beneath all that technical testimony was a larger question: when does a paper trail become evidence of a constitutional violation, and when is it simply a record of a transaction that may itself be lawful?

That question ran through nearly every major exchange.

The prosecution sought to connect three bodies of records: government contracts awarded to GenCorp Industries Inc., the Vice President’s SALN declarations, and the company’s records with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The defense worked in the opposite direction, trying to separate those records from any conclusion of personal enrichment, improper influence or prohibited non-divestment.

The fight, therefore, was not simply over what the documents said. It was over what they could prove.

𝑰. 𝑺𝒕𝒊𝒍𝒍, 𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑮𝒆𝒏𝑪𝒐𝒓𝒑 𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒍

The morning session resumed the cross-examination of Rendell Sopeña, chief of the Electronic Government Procurement Operations Division of the Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System, or PhilGEPS.

The prosecution used PhilGEPS records to show that GenCorp received 49 government contracts worth about ₱35.88 million between July 2022 and June 2026.

The focus then narrowed to Davao City. Of the 15 Davao City contracts reflected in the PhilGEPS records, four underwent competitive public bidding.

Eleven, worth roughly ₱7 million to ₱8 million, were processed through Negotiated Small Value Procurement, an alternative procurement mode recognized under Republic Act No. 9184.

The 15 contracts were valued at approximately ₱34.22 million in the PhilGEPS records.

For the prosecution, these figures mattered because they were not being presented in isolation. They were being placed beside the Vice President’s sworn declarations of an interest in GenCorp.

The defense attacked the evidentiary weight of Sopeña’s testimony. His role, defense counsel stressed, was technical. PhilGEPS records transactions and procurement information uploaded by government agencies. It does not investigate corruption, determine whether prices were inflated, establish conflicts of interest or determine whether a public official improperly intervened in a procurement process.

In that sense, PhilGEPS was a records system—not an investigative body. Sopeña could testify about what was posted, when it was posted and what procurement method was used. He could not, from personal knowledge, testify that the Vice President or her husband manipulated a bidding process, received kickbacks or personally benefited from any particular contract.

That distinction went to the heart of Article II.The issue was not simply whether GenCorp received government business. The constitutional questions were whether the Vice President had a prohibited financial interest, failed to divest, or accumulated unexplained wealth.

A government contract, standing alone, did not necessarily answer any of those questions.

𝑰𝑰. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑺𝒎𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝑽𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒄𝒖𝒓𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒖𝒆

The defense also concentrated on the 11 Davao City transactions processed through Negotiated Small Value Procurement.

Its point was simple: the use of an alternative procurement method authorized by law does not, by itself, establish wrongdoing.The defense further emphasized where the procurement decisions were actually made. The selection of the procurement mode, evaluation of offers and award of contracts are functions of the appropriate Bids and Awards Committee and procuring entity. PhilGEPS records the transaction; it does not decide who gets the contract.

That line of questioning sought to move the issue away from the Vice President and toward the local procurement machinery that handled the transactions.

But the defense position also exposed a gap the prosecution still had to confront.

The PhilGEPS records established the contracts. They did not establish, through Sopeña’s testimony, where the money went after GenCorp was paid. Nor did they show that the Vice President personally received any part of the proceeds.

The prosecution therefore still had a bridge to build between government contracts and personal financial interest.

𝑰𝑰𝑰. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒏𝒖𝒎𝒃𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒅𝒊𝒅 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒒𝒖𝒊𝒕𝒆 𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒄𝒉

The procurement records, however, produced another issue.

PhilGEPS showed 15 Davao City contracts worth ₱34,216,900—four through public bidding and 11 through small-value procurement.

Davao City records, by contrast, were reported as showing 19 transactions worth ₱33.26 million—four publicly bid contracts and 15 processed through small-value procurement.

The parties therefore agreed on the four (4) major contracts that underwent competitive bidding but differed on the number of smaller transactions and the overall value.

The difference was not overwhelming in monetary terms. But it mattered because government records were being used as evidence.

Mayor Sebastian “Baste” Duterte was subpoenaed to clarify the local transactions and reconcile the city’s records with the PhilGEPS entries. He sought additional time to gather and authenticate the relevant municipal documents, and his testimony was rescheduled.

So by the close of the procurement testimony, the question had become larger than whether GenCorp received government contracts. Could the different records be reconciled?

And, beyond that, could the transactions be connected to the Vice President in a way that established a constitutional violation under Article II?

𝑰𝑽. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑺𝑨𝑳𝑵-𝑺𝑬𝑪 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏

This was where the GenCorp issue became much more consequential.

The Vice President’s 2024 and 2025 SALNs reportedly declared an interest or shareholding in GenCorp, acquired in 2013.

Yet SEC records and General Information Sheets presented during the trial did not list her as an incorporator, stockholder or board director.The contradiction was difficult to miss.

One set of official records appeared to say she had a business interest in GenCorp. Another set of corporate records did not show her name.

The prosecution made that discrepancy central to its Article II theory.

A SALN is a sworn declaration, prosecutors argued. If the Vice President declared an interest in GenCorp, the declaration could not simply be ignored because her name did not appear in the company’s public corporate records.

The prosecution therefore treated the SALN entry as a declaration that required explanation.The government contracts became relevant because they supplied the surrounding context. If the Vice President had an interest in GenCorp, and if GenCorp was receiving government contracts during her tenure, prosecutors argued, the combination could raise constitutional concerns under Article VII, Section 13.

Article VII, Section 13 explicitly states: “The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution … shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.”

They also pointed to the fact that the GenCorp interest reportedly appeared in more than one SALN, arguing that repeated declarations made a one-time clerical error harder to sustain as an explanation.

From there came another prosecution theory: that the absence of her name in the SEC records could reflect an indirect or beneficial ownership arrangement.

But that remained a theory advanced by the prosecution, not an established fact.

𝑽. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒅𝒆𝒇𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒆: 𝒏𝒐 𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒅, 𝒏𝒐 𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒉𝒆𝒅 𝒐𝒘𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒉𝒊𝒑

The defense attacked the argument from the other end. Corporate ownership, it maintained, is a matter of formal documentation. Stock ownership is reflected through stock certificates and corporate records filed with the SEC.

If the SEC records did not identify the Vice President as a stockholder, incorporator or director, the defense argued, then no corporate ownership link had been established.The defense also warned against mixing up different kinds of money.

Corporate capital is not an individual’s income. Corporate revenue is not automatically a shareholder’s personal gain. And the total amount of government contracts awarded to a company does not by itself show how much a particular person received.

No evidence had been presented, the defense maintained, showing that the Vice President personally received dividends, contract payments, transfers or other benefits from GenCorp’s government transactions. Nor, it argued, had prosecutors produced board resolutions, bank transfers or comparable records showing that she exercised control over those contracts.

The defense was therefore trying to separate three things the prosecution was attempting to connect: GenCorp’s government contracts, the Vice President’s SALN declaration, and actual personal financial gain.

The first was documented. The second was documented.The third still had to be established.

𝑽𝑰. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑺𝒆𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒕 𝒅𝒓𝒂𝒘𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒅𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏

Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero made an important distinction in dealing with the competing records.

The impeachment court would take judicial notice of both the SALN declarations and the SEC records. But recognizing the documents was not the same as accepting the prosecution’s legal conclusion.

The documents could establish what appeared in the SALNs and what appeared in the SEC filings. They could not, by themselves, explain why the records differed or what constitutional consequence should follow.

Was the SALN entry erroneous? Was there an actual business interest that did not appear in the SEC records?Was there an indirect ownership structure? Was the discrepancy material?

Or was it insufficient, by itself, to establish unexplained wealth or prohibited non-divestment?Those questions remained open. And so did GenCorp’s place at the center of Article II.

𝑽𝑰𝑰. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒇𝒊𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒎𝒔 𝒅𝒆𝒕𝒐𝒖𝒓

The afternoon session moved into personal assets.The prosecution called Police Major Jerickson Sanggalang of the PNP Firearms and Explosives Office to testify on firearms registered to the Duterte spouses.

The records showed 22 firearms registered to Vice President Duterte, valued by the PNP at about ₱2.18 million.Her husband, Atty. Manases “Mans” Carpio, had 29 registered firearms valued at about ₱5.03 million.

Together, the couple had 51 registered firearms with an estimated current value of more than ₱7.2 million.

Duterte’s collection consisted of 14 pistols, two revolvers, one shotgun and five rifles. Three of the rifles were identified as Class A Light Weapons with selective or automatic capability.

The prosecution’s position was not that firearm ownership itself was unlawful. Its argument was that firearms of substantial value are personal assets and therefore relevant to the completeness of SALN disclosures and the overall picture of an official’s wealth.But the testimony quickly met resistance.

𝑽𝑰𝑰𝑰. 𝑾𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒓𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒗𝒂𝒏𝒕—𝒃𝒖𝒕 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒏𝒆𝒄𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒍𝒚 𝒘𝒆𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚

Senator-Judge Juan Miguel “Migz” Zubiri questioned why substantial trial time was being spent on legally registered firearms, describing the buildup as a large “firework” that ended in a small “kwitis.”

Senator Raffy Tulfo likewise questioned the value of devoting so much time to registered assets.

Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian pointed to another weakness: the PNP valuation was based on current market prices, not on what the firearms actually cost when purchased.

That distinction mattered. Current market value is not necessarily historical acquisition cost. Escudero also observed that the Vice President’s firearms, valued at about ₱2.18 million, were relatively small compared with her declared net worth of more than ₱88 million.

The defense took the point. If the firearms were to support an unexplained-wealth allegation, it argued, prosecutors had to explain why legally acquired and registered assets comprising only a fraction of the declared net worth were being presented as significant evidence of financial wrongdoing.

The defense ultimately waived cross-examination after it became clear that the PNP figures did not establish the couple’s actual purchase price.The records were admitted. But the presentation was cut short.

That episode revealed something larger about the impeachment court: evidence may be technically relevant without being sufficiently weighty to carry the allegation attached to it.

𝑰𝑿. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒍𝒂𝒓𝒈𝒆𝒓 𝒇𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒂𝒃𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝒈𝒖𝒏𝒔

The firearms testimony mattered less for the guns themselves than for what it revealed about the prosecution’s broader strategy.

The prosecution was trying to build a complete picture of personal wealth.

The senator-judges were asking whether each item actually advanced the constitutional case.That distinction matters in an impeachment proceeding.

An impeachment case cannot simply become an inventory of everything an official owns. The evidence has to connect the asset to the allegation.

The prosecution could establish that the firearms existed and had a certain estimated value. What it could not establish through that testimony alone was that the firearms represented unexplained wealth, unlawful enrichment or prohibited non-disclosure.

𝑿. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒅𝒆𝒇𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒆’𝒔 𝒕𝒆𝒄𝒉𝒏𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒆

The same tension was visible in the defense’s questioning of Sopeña.

Again and again, the defense emphasized the witness’s lack of personal knowledge.

PhilGEPS could show that transactions were posted. It could identify the procurement method. But it could not say whether corruption occurred.

The defense’s larger proposition was equally straightforward: Records can establish that something happened. They do not necessarily establish why it happened.

That approach produced an immediate tactical benefit.

Sopeña was not turned into a witness who could testify that the Vice President personally intervened in GenCorp contracts, received kickbacks or manipulated procurement.

The defense also established that Negotiated Small Value Procurement is a recognized procurement method under RA 9184.Those were legitimate qualifications to the prosecution’s presentation.

But the strategy also raised another question. How far can an impeachment defense rely on the same procedural and evidentiary tactics used in an ordinary criminal case?

That question surfaced in Senator-Judge Panfilo “Ping” Lacson’s intervention.

𝑿𝑰. 𝑪𝒓𝒊𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝒄𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒕𝒓𝒐𝒐𝒎 𝒐𝒓 𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒉𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒃𝒖𝒏𝒂𝒍?

Lacson cautioned against treating the impeachment case as though it were a conventional criminal prosecution.

The distinction is fundamental. A criminal case requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, with the accused protected by the presumption of innocence. An impeachment proceeding serves a different constitutional function. It does not impose imprisonment. Its immediate consequence is whether a high public official should remain in office under the grounds set out in the Constitution.

The Constitution and Senate impeachment rules do not expressly require proof beyond reasonable doubt as the standard for conviction.That does not mean that evidence can be weak or speculative. It still has to be credible and sufficiently persuasive.

But the tribunal is not necessarily required to reproduce every evidentiary demand of a criminal court.That was the importance of Lacson’s warning. A strategy built around producing an “iota of doubt” may be decisive in a criminal prosecution. In an impeachment proceeding, the senator-judges may instead examine the totality of the evidence and its constitutional implications.

That is a different battlefield.

Thus, there is that danger of winning the technical point and missing the larger question. The Sopeña cross-examination captured that tension.The defense established a real limitation: he was a records custodian, not an investigator. He lacked direct knowledge of corruption and could not personally testify that the Vice President benefited from GenCorp’s contracts.

But the prosecution could still point to the larger documentary chain. GenCorp received government contracts. The company was named in the Vice President’s SALNs. Her name did not appear in the SEC records presented to the Senate. And the relationship among those facts remained unresolved.

The defense could challenge every individual link.The prosecution could ask the senator-judges to consider the chain as a whole.

Neither approach, standing alone, answered the constitutional question.That was the central tension of Day 30.

𝑿𝑰𝑰. 𝑨𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒍𝒆 𝑰𝑰 𝒂𝒔 𝒂 𝒄𝒂𝒔𝒆 𝒂𝒃𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒏𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔

Article II was increasingly becoming a case about connections.

The prosecution needed to connect the Vice President to GenCorp. It needed to explain the relationship between her SALN declaration and the SEC records.

It needed to connect GenCorp’s government contracts to the constitutional prohibition on financial interests in government contracts. And, where unexplained wealth was alleged, it had to connect assets, income and disclosure in a way that went beyond simply showing that property exists.

The defense was trying to break those connections apart. A contract is not, by itself, proof of corruption. A lawful procurement method is not, by itself, proof of irregularity.

A corporate contract is not an individual’s income. A SALN entry is not automatically proof of actual corporate ownership. A discrepancy between official records is not automatically proof of concealment. And, a registered firearm is not automatically evidence of unexplained wealth.That was the defense’s architecture.

The prosecution’s was the mirror image: taken together, the records formed a pattern that required explanation.

𝑿𝑰𝑰𝑰. 𝑾𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝑫𝒂𝒚 30 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚 𝒓𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒆𝒅

By the end of the day, the firearms and the individual procurement transactions had become secondary to a harder problem.

The real issue was the relationship among the documents.The SALNs said one thing about GenCorp. The SEC records appeared to say another.

PhilGEPS showed that GenCorp received millions of pesos in government contracts. Davao City records raised questions about the precise number and value of transactions. And the PhilGEPS witness could establish the existence of procurement records but not, from personal knowledge, whether those transactions involved improper influence or personal financial gain.

That left neither side with the luxury of relying on a single witness.

The prosecution would have to make the documents speak to one another.

The defense would have to explain why the apparent connections do not establish the constitutional violations alleged.

That is harder than merely exposing a technical defect in one record or one witness.

Day 30, in the end, was a test of whether the impeachment case could move from fragments to meaning.

It showed that the prosecution’s challenge is not simply to produce more documents, while the defense’s challenge is not simply to poke holes in each one. Both sides are now dealing with the same documentary universe and asking the Senate-Impeachment Court to draw very different conclusions from it.

The strongest evidence will therefore not necessarily be the most dramatic evidence.

It will be the evidence that can survive the connections: the SALN against the SEC record, the contract against the procurement history, the asset against its real acquisition value, and the paper trail against the constitutional duty it is supposed to illuminate.

That is what Day 30 revealed.

Article II will not be decided by the sheer volume of records. It will turn on whether those records can be connected, reconciled and explained in a way that gives constitutional meaning to the allegations—or whether, after all the documents are laid side by side, the gaps between them remain too wide to bridge.

That is where the real accountability question now sits.

ImpechmentTrial #DuterteOnTrial

Accountability #Impeachment