MANILA, Philippines — Prosecution spokespersons argued on Monday, September 21, that corporate records linking Vice President Sara Duterte to a private firm demonstrate a direct violation of the 1987 Constitution.
The statements followed testimony from Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) official Gerardo del Rosario during the Senate impeachment trial, where corporate documents for Metro City Chow Foods Corporation listed Duterte as a board and compensation committee member in a 2025 filing.
Lanao del Sur 1st District Representative Zia Alonto Adiong, speaking for the prosecution panel during a press conference, asserted that the role goes beyond passive investment and conflicts with constitutional limits on the country’s top officials.
“She is a director [of the corporation]. Sa Section 13 of Article 7, bawal yun,” Adiong stated.
“Bullseye po ang violation sa ating Saligang Batas,” he added.
Adiong emphasized that Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution explicitly forbids the President, Vice President, and Cabinet members from holding any other office or participating in any business during their tenure.
He noted that as a lawyer, Duterte should have been aware of these restrictions.
Surigao del Norte 2nd District Representative Robert Ace Barbers, also representing the prosecution, pointed out that the company had been declared in Duterte’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) during her term as Vice President.
During the trial proceedings, Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian questioned the SEC witness regarding managerial involvement based on filings from 2024 and 2025, which del Rosario explained were based on reports submitted by the company’s corporate secretary.
Under questioning regarding agency oversight, del Rosario stated that the SEC lacks a specific directive to flag or report the business interests of elected officials.
Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero limited further questioning on the topic, noting del Rosario was not testifying as a constitutional expert.
Addressing the SEC’s regulatory scope, Adiong remarked that the agency was simply adhering to its operational mandate, maintaining that the absence of specific SEC reporting guidelines does not negate the constitutional prohibition.
He also raised concerns regarding potential director compensation, questioning the implications if corporate funds were disbursed for such a role, before reiterating the prosecution’s central charge.
“Pinag-usapan po natin dito ay pagtataksil sa tiwala ng ating taong bayan. Klaro po ang violation sa ating Saligang Batas,” Adiong concluded.