Former Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang.
THE Senate Impeachment Court on Monday allowed former Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang to testify on the general public-accountability framework—or Wealth Test—that will guide the prosecution’s presentation under Article II of the case against Vice President Sara Duterte.
Presiding Officer Francis Escudero made clear that Cabotaje-Tang would not discuss the specific facts involving Duterte. Her testimony would remain subject to qualification and cross-examination, while any opinion she gives would neither bind the court nor conclusively settle the questions before it.
Before ruling, Escudero asked House Prosecutor and Akbayan party-list Rep. Chel Diokno to define the intended scope: “Will you be asking specifics about this particular case to the witness, Justice Cabotaje-Tang, or will you be asking general principles pertaining to the law that may be applicable to the specific facts of this case?”
“The latter, Mr. Presiding Officer,” Diokno answered. He confirmed that he would not raise case-specific matters with Cabotaje-Tang.
Escudero then confirmed that Cabotaje-Tang’s answers would apply generally rather than directly to the respondent. “Whatever answer she will give by way of opinion, should you be able to qualify her as an expert, would be generically applied to what the law says and not specifically to the respondent?” he asked. Diokno answered yes.
The clarification preserved the prosecution’s stated purpose for calling Cabotaje-Tang at the start of its unexplained-wealth presentation: to explain the framework through which the court and the public may understand the SALNs, financial records, business interests, properties, transactions and other documents that succeeding witnesses will identify.
In practical terms, that framework asks three connected questions: What was declared? What do the records show? Do they match? It is a method for examining the evidence, rather than a finding that any discrepancy or violation has already been established.
The framework centers on six questions raised in Diokno’s offer: when an official’s wealth becomes questionable; how money or property not registered in the official’s name should be considered; whether the president and vice president face a higher accountability standard; whether they may conduct business while in office; how to assess a business that transacts with government; and what a SALN should show about a public servant’s financial position.
The defense opposed the presentation, arguing that courts already take notice of Philippine law, that the proposed witness was not privy to the facts, and that legal opinions should not be offered without applying them to a particular record. Senator-judge Imee Marcos separately questioned whether the court needed assistance on constitutional and accountability rules.
Escudero allowed the testimony while placing express limits on its weight. “Although she may be qualified as an expert, subject to cross, whatever Justice Cabotaje-Tang will say is not binding on the court and her opinion is not conclusive upon the court,” he ruled.
He also declined to make an advance declaration about her status. “There is no need for the court to declare this witness if she’s an expert or not. It is subject to cross. It is subject to the qualification to be made by the Honorable Diokno,” Escudero said.
“So the court will allow it,” he added.
The presiding officer said the pretrial order reserved the prosecution’s right to present additional or substitute witnesses as circumstances warranted. He noted that the prosecution had committed to present 15 witnesses over 12 days and could count Cabotaje-Tang against that allocation.
Defense counsel Mark Vinluan accepted the ruling while maintaining the respondent’s position. “Your Honor, we will submit to the ruling of this court and we register a continuing objection in the presentation of this witness,” he said.
Escudero said the defense could cross-examine Cabotaje-Tang after her testimony or postpone the cross-examination until the following day because she had not been named in the pretrial order. He also said the defense remained free to present its own witness to dispute her testimony.
Article II alleges three matters involving Duterte: wealth allegedly disproportionate to lawful income, allegedly incomplete or untruthful SALNs from 2022 to 2024, and alleged failure to divest or continued prohibited business participation from 2022 to 2025. Duterte has denied wrongdoing.
metrosundaily
