Duterte impeachment trial Day 34
[ANALYSIS] Money laundering 101 for senator-judges
Day 34 of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial turned into an academic briefing on spotting dirty money and the surrounding legal limitations, with the executive director of the Anti-Money Laundering Council as its captive resource person.
It did so after lawyer Ronel Buenaventura failed—or refused—to categorically conclude that the numerous transactions in financial accounts allegedly held by the VP and her father, former president Rodrigo Duterte, as well as an account linked to her husband and one of the couple’s companies, Calle 88, could not be classified as dirty money. The transactions, covering 2007 to 2025, had an aggregate value of P4.4 billion.
These were “red-flagged” as classified either as suspicious transactions (STRs) or covered transactions (CTRs), but on cross-examination by defense counsel Mark Vinluan, Buenaventura said these were “not legal conclusions” on the numerous accounts.
Buenaventura refused to say that the AMLC has pending investigations, if at all, on these accounts, or has filed charges against the Dutertes for these suspicious accounts in the past many years.
The hearing was part of Article II, one of the four impeachment complaints, which tackled allegations against Duterte of unexplained wealth, among other things.
“The suspicious transactions are not enough,” Buenaventura said. “(AMLC) needed further investigations and analysis (to make a conclusion).”
“Not enough to say the amounts were linked to flood control budget, drug money, or malversation of public funds. Not enough that these transactions could be considered money laundering,” Vinluan cornered Buenaventura.
Because the senator-judges could not likewise extract any categorical statement to pin down any of the transactions, they raised almost identical questions when they took turns, wondering why things seemed in limbo for all the numerous STRs and CTRs the AMLC had reported.
“I am unable to answer that,” he said.
That was Buenaventura’s standard reply to many of their questions, not wanting to go beyond the subpoenaed AMLC report.
That was his reply when Risa Hontiveros asked if AMLC was investigating the alleged infusion of Chinese money, with an aggregate amount of P319 million as shown in the transactions, by some Chinese companies, though not qualified if these were privately-owned or state-owned companies. The Embassy of China in the Philippines had said in a statement that Beijing had not infused money for an unnamed political faction in the Philippines.
That was Buenaventura’s reply when Raffy Tulfo and Bam Aquino asked when AMLC made an investigation when it received the STRs and CTRs. What could be the trigger for an investigation? Buenaventura said AMLC received millions of STRs and CTRs a day and, given its limited budget and personnel, it needed to prioritize what had to be urgent and important.
But AMLC regularly coordinates with other law enforcement agencies to initiate an investigation, he said.
That was his reply when Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian asked whether Cale88—a corporation linked to Duterte's husband—could be subject to a money-laundering case because its books did not reflect large cash inflows.
Given the same reply, the question hour by the senators was effectively reduced to an academic discussion on the AMLC functions and limitations, as provided for by Republic Act No. 9160 in September 2001, as amended. “We understand, you wanted to be safe,” Erwin Tulfo said. “No need to apologize,” said Hontiveros.
But indeed, the STRs and the CTRs were so many, said Raffy. And the flow of money was unusual, said Gatchalian.
Based on Bernardo’s testimony, the AMLC listed a total of 373 CTRs and 34 STRs for Duterte, and 363 CTRs and 30 STRs for her husband, covering the years 2007 to 2025.
The prosecution had maintained that Duterte had failed to declare in her SALN any of these transactions. Still, the prosecution has yet to establish the end balance of these accounts, which may be extracted from subsequent witnesses from various government and private banks.
Like Vinluan, Duterte’s spokesman, lawyer Paolo Panelo, said the VP had nothing to hide. “Pinadaan (ang transaction) sa bangko,” Panelo said in a televised interview. People who hid anything do not course transactions through the banks, apparently referring to flood-control money delivered to some politicians through suitcases.
To be fair, the AMLC had requested the Court of Appeals to issue a freeze order on several accounts, but Buenaventura likewise refused to say if any of these orders involved one or some of Duterte’s accounts.
Raffy asked if the AMLC is afraid of the Dutertes, to which Buenaventura said he could testify only on the documents the court had requested.
Beyond that, he could not disclose anything, whether it filed charges or not. “Otherwise, we would be held in contempt by the court,” he said.
On interjections, most senators again inquired about Buenaventura’s physical condition, his health, and stamina to ensure he was fit to continue through the lengthy cross-examination.
Buenaventura’s appearance was way longer than those of the appearances of NBI officials Melvin Matibag and Jeremy Lotoc, witnesses in Article IV, or on the allegations of grave threats.
Buenaventura did not take his lunch on his first day because he felt nervous. He had biscuits on his second day. Through it all, he was a calm witness, a good resource person, save for his refusal to answer the most crucial questions seeking to declare the transactions as part of Duterte’s alleged ill-gotten wealth.
Two other witnesses, both from the Land Bank in Davao City, took the witness stand. They were Eunice Sumatra of the San Pedro branch and Raquel Vela Cerna of the R. Magsaysay branch.
The direct examination by private prosecutor James Bryan Ibrahim Alih led to procedural clashes.
Defense counsel CJ Narvasa repeatedly objected to the scope and offer of her testimony, forcing presiding officer Chiz Escudero to intervene and assure Sumatra that the legal panels "were not fighting each other" but simply debating rules of evidence.
Cerna testified regarding the bank accounts of Duterte and her husband. Cerna confirmed that two of her LandBank accounts had been closed.
She revealed that an account under Mans Carpio's name remains active and showed fluctuating balances over recent years.
In all, Day 34 was lighter than Day 33.
Save for the initial skirmishes between Alih and Narvasa toward the tail end of the trial, Day 34 went without much tension, not in the proportion of Day 33.
On interjection, Robin Padilla noted that Buenaventura was a bar topnotcher, having landed No. 10 in the 2015 Bar examination. Padilla said he studied criminology in college and informed the AMLC official that he could be his teacher, willingly sharing the things he learned about investigation in college.
But the senator-judge likewise failed to get any AMLC investigation update on Duterte.
Day 34 began with Vinluan expressing apology over what was perceived as a threat to senator-judges and news people when he asked Buenaventura to talk about the penalty for violation of the AMLC confidentiality rule.
But did the senator-judges and the public get any wiser on Day 34?
Ping Lacson expressed confusion over Buenaventura’s explanation of the AMLC’s parallel investigative functions, remarking, "With all due respect, thank you for the confusion." He said so in jest, nevertheless.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the opinions of PhilSTAR L!fe, its parent company and affiliates, or its staff.
WATCH: Do you still believe in marriage? (Generations Ep. 17)
August 19, 2026
WATCH: Is Philippine cinema still thriving? (Generations Ep. 19)
September 2, 2026
WATCH: Save for retirement or enjoy life now? (Generations Ep. 21)
September 16, 2026