[ANALYSIS] Duterte impeachment trial Day 24: Unexplained wealth 101, nothing more
It was not exactly a good curtain raiser for Article II of the impeachment complaint, or the allegations of unexplained wealth, against Vice President Sara Duterte.
The prosecution failed on Day 24 to keep the heat it generated when it wrapped up last week Article I, or the alleged misuse of millions of pesos in confidential funds released to the OVP and the Department of Education.
The prosecution presented on Monday. Sept. 14, Sandiganbayan's former presiding justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang, amid strong opposition from defense counsel Atty. Mark Vinluan.
But the presiding chair, senator-judge Chiz Escudero, prevailed upon the defense, prompting the viewers to expect some fireworks ahead.
Tang was the first prosecution witness on Article II, probably the most punishing and contentious part of the trial given the voluminous financial documents the court has received as evidence.
House prosecutor Atty. Chel Diokno said Tang was to provide a legal framework for the senator-judges and the public at large to understand Article II. Vinluan cast a continuing objection against her appearance.
“The prosecution respectfully offers the testimony of Justice Tang,” said Diokno, “to prove that she has specialized knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education, to testify as an expert on public accountability and for the purpose of providing this impeachment court with the framework for understanding and evaluating the financial and documentary evidence that the prosecution will subsequently present.”
Though low-key and low-profile, Tang has earned a positive reputation in the legal community, holding positions and cases against graft and corruption in government.
For some time, the prospect of hearing Tang’s testimony put us on the edge of our seats, thinking we were headed for a more exciting part. By virtue of her stock knowledge of plunder and other corruption laws, she could pin down Duterte simply by defining plunder of government funds.
Tang has been in the service for the last 44 years, including 30 years at the Office of the Solicitor General and 11 years at the Sandiganbayan, the anti-graft court trying government officials. At present, she teaches political law at San Beda College and the University of Sto. Tomas.
Vinluan questioned her appearance; so did senator-judges Imee Marcos and Raffy Tulfo.
Possibly not now, not yet, Raffy said. Maybe at the end of the week since she had no personal knowledge of Duterte’s unexplained wealth?
Marcos said Tang could not testify on factual matters or authenticate the voluminous financial records submitted by the banks. Might as well be insignificant to listen to her now, she said.
“We believe that Justice Tang's decades of specialized experience can assist the court in understanding the legal framework and assessing the evidence that we will be presenting thereafter," Diokno said.
On direct examination, Tang indeed lent her expertise, citing laws that define and differentiate unexplained wealth, ill-gotten wealth, and hidden wealth, laying out the requirements of a full compliance filing of the Statement of Assets and Liabilities forms, especially for the President and the Vice President, which explicitly bar them from holding and participating in private businesses.
The senators raised a number of academic questions, but one felt that some questions were raised with Duterte’s alleged offenses in mind.
Her answers were spontaneous, drawing from decades of experience.
There are laws governing conjugal wealth, and there are laws requiring a public employee or a public official to declare even his spouse’s assets. There are laws that provide exemptions.
There are specific legal instructions that a public official must itemize, separate cash on hand and cash in bank from tangible assets.
Tang was, by all indications, knowledgeable on corruption laws and cases, but Escudero did not declare her an expert witness. While she could be, Tang likewise refused to call herself a legal expert, preferring it was up to other people to say she was.
An expert legal witness is a legal specialist who gives professional opinions on complex topics outside normal understanding—like a friend of the court. She was not invited to be so, however.
But, indeed, for all her legal prowess, Tang didn’t excite us like a star witness for Article II, and she knew it.
She was not the best opening salvo, raising speculations that the prosecution, for all the voluminous documents it perused last week, was still looking for a black cat in a dark room. Or is the prosecution still buying time?
The pendulum would soon swing, especially when Vinluan cross-examined Tang, raising even what others perceived as irreverent questions to challenge her credibility.
“Are you anti-Duterte in any way?” Vinluan asked.
Tang applied for a seat on the Supreme Court four times during the term of former president Rodrigo Duterte, but was rejected each time. She didn’t take it against him. “No. That is his exclusive prerogative.”
Her subpoena to appear before the impeachment court at the office of Diokno’s Akabayan Partylist, a known Duterte critic. Was she anti-Sara? A Kakampink? No. She didn’t even know the word. “I’ve always been apolitical.”
Vinluan asked further: “Do you like VP Sara?” Tang said she didn't know her personally. Neither did she know anything about the impeachment complaint against the VP and thus she would rather not comment for or against it.
Given the choice, Tang would not have appeared in the witness stand, but she respected the subpoena. Did she expect anything in return?
“My testimony is not for sale,” she said.
She is retired, and she is enjoying it.
It was a political seesaw. Eventually, the senator-judges profusely thanked her for decades of public service, probably to compensate for taking a hot seat post-retirement.
Meanwhile, the thrill is gone.
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.
