HOUSE of Representatives prosecutors accused Vice-President (VP) Sara Duterte-Carpio of a conflict of interest over Davao City’s award of 15 contracts worth about P34 million to a company she declared in her statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN), the Senate impeachment court heard on Monday.
Lead prosecutor and Batangas Rep. Gerville R. Luistro argued that GenCorp Industries, Inc.’s participation in city procurement violated Article VII, Section 13 of the Constitution.
Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System division chief Rendell P. Sopeña told Senator Ana Theresia N. Hontiveros-Baraquel that 11 of the 15 contracts were awarded through negotiated small-value procurement, a method that does not require public bidding.
He estimated their combined value at P7 million to P8 million, out of about P34 million in contracts supposedly awarded to GenCorp by Davao City.
Mr. Sopeña said none of the 11 contracts exceeded P2 million. All were classified as food and catering services but were published and awarded on different dates.
Under cross-examination by defense lawyer Roberto N. Batungbacal, he confirmed that 34 of GenCorp’s 49 government contracts were awarded by Philippine Health Insurance Corp. Region XI and the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration Region XI, rather than Davao City.
The contracts also prompted senator-judges to question a potential conflict of interest, given that Ms. Duterte and Davao City Mayor Sebastian “Baste” Z. Duterte are siblings.
Mr. Duterte has denied knowing of his sister’s alleged involvement in the company, saying in a Sept. 21 Facebook statement that “all transactions of the city of Davao with Gencorp Industries are above board.”
Presiding Judge and Senator Francis G. Escudero noted a discrepancy between Ms. Duterte’s SALN, which identifies her as a GenCorp stockholder, and the company’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) records, which do not list her, based on earlier testimony by SEC Director Gerardo F. del Rosario.
“So that is one difference that still has to be reconciled at some point,” Mr. Escudero said. He said he expects both sides to address the discrepancy.
Senator Panfilo M. Lacson, meanwhile, urged the defense to reconsider its reliance on technical questions, saying the approach was not resonating with senator-judges.
He said the questioning appeared to apply the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, “which I believe is not the case in this impeachment trial.”
TESTIMONY ON FIREARMS
The impeachment court also heard testimony on firearms registered to Ms. Duterte and her husband, Manases R. Carpio.
At least 22 firearms are registered to the Vice President and 29 to Mr. Carpio, witness Police Major Jerickson Sangalang said during direct examination led by House prosecutor and San Juan Rep. Ysabel Zamora.
He estimated the market value of Ms. Duterte’s firearms at P2.18 million. Mr. Sangalang said three of her rifles were classified as Class A light weapons with fully automatic firing capabilities.
He said firearms legislation allows law enforcement agencies, including the Philippine National Police and the Armed Forces of the Philippines, to acquire such weapons. People who owned them before the law took effect may keep their registration.
Several senator-judges questioned the relevance of the testimony to the impeachment case.
Senators Juan Miguel F. Zubiri, Erwin T. Tulfo, Vicente C. Sotto III and Alan Peter S. Cayetano raised concerns, with Mr. Zubiri and Mr. Sotto noting that public officials commonly declare firearms as personal property in their SALNs.
“Many of us are firearms owners here, if not all members of the Senate,” Mr. Zubiri said.
Senator Rafael T. Tulfo later described the testimony as “a waste of time.”
Mr. Escudero said he was initially inclined to exclude the witness, noting that the estimated value of the firearms was within the P88 million in assets declared in Ms. Duterte’s latest SALN.
Ms. Zamora argued that SALN guidelines require registered firearms to be declared individually. The defense countered that the guidelines apply only to declarations filed beginning in 2026.
Mr. Escudero allowed the presentation to continue but expressed doubts about its relevance to the allegation of ill-gotten wealth. “We find this witness not as convincing with respect to ill-gotten wealth,” he said.
Mr. Sangalang subsequently confirmed that the firearm valuations presented to the court reflected market prices rather than actual acquisition costs.
The defense declined to cross-examine him. — Francesska S. Abalos