A POSSIBLE prenuptial agreement between Vice President Sara Z. Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, would not automatically shield her from impeachment over alleged unexplained wealth, while House prosecutors are examining whether the National Bureau of Investigation’s (NBI) findings on disputed properties in Davao City could still be considered in the case.
House impeachment adviser and trial spokesperson Ace Barbers and human rights lawyer Dino de Leon, a convenor of Bantay Senado, maintained that any agreement separating the couple’s properties would leave unresolved allegations concerning Duterte’s own financial declarations, corporate interests and possible violations of constitutional restrictions on business activities.
“So these three, assuming for the sake of argument that that prenuptial really exists, will not exculpate VP Sara from being impeached,” Barbers stressed during the Saturday News Forum at Dapo Restaurant in Quezon City.
The remaining Article II involves three principal allegations identified by the prosecution: unexplained wealth, failure to divest business and financial interests, and failure to fully and truthfully disclose assets, liabilities and net worth in Duterte’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs).
Barbers emphasized that these allegations must be considered separately from the couple’s marital property arrangements.
“So assuming without conceding that the prenuptial agreement will be valid or to begin with exist, marami pa ring mga kailangang sagutin itong si Sara Duterte,” De Leon maintained.
Barbers questioned why the supposed agreement had not been raised during earlier congressional proceedings when Duterte and Carpio’s financial interests were already being scrutinized through bank documents, corporate filings and tax records.
“Well, kung merong prenuptial agreement ‘yan, di sana noon pa nila ipinesinta ‘yan,” Barbers pointed out.
De Leon also raised questions about the possible existence and registration of the agreement, noting that marriage settlements must comply with applicable legal requirements, including registration to bind third parties.
“Usually, all the time that I know as a lawyer, dapat ina-annotate doon sa marriage certificate,” De Leon explained in the same forum.
The prosecution previously presented evidence concerning Duterte’s declared interests in GenCorp, Cale88 Foods Corp. and Metro City Chow Corp., while Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution prohibits the Vice President from directly or indirectly participating in any business during her tenure, subject to the Constitution’s terms.
“So even if the prenuptial agreement would be presented, again, just to conclude, questionable yung circumstances nito. The probative value is really very weak,” De Leon argued.
The controversy has been allegedly compounded by National Bureau of Investigation findings involving properties in Barangay Catigan, Davao City.
Investigators alleged that two properties listed in Duterte’s latest SALN as agricultural land had substantial improvements, including a mansion, swimming pools and a helipad.
The NBI said its findings indicated possible discrepancies in the property declarations and referred the matter to the Office of the Ombudsman for further investigation.
Duterte has denied owning the properties shown by the bureau and disputed the allegations.
Barbers said prosecutors would have to seek the Senate Impeachment Court’s permission if they wanted to introduce additional material from the NBI findings, given that the prosecution had already rested its case and filed its formal offer of evidence.
“Hindi po malayo na maisama ito, but we will have to seek the approval of the court kasi nga ito ay wala doon sa Articles of Impeachment na aming isinumite na transmit sa Senado,” Barbers explained, responding to questions about whether recently surfaced NBI-related information could still be considered in the unexplained wealth case.
“But of course, if this would add more weight dun sa evidence na aming naipresenta na and if the court will allow this, bakit hindi? We will probably do that ngayon,” Barbers added, saying any attempt to introduce the material would depend on the court’s approval and the relevance of the findings to the remaining charge.
metrosundaily
