The House prosecution panel is scrutinizing Vice President Sara Duterte’s alleged financial ties to Gencorp Industries Inc. following testimony in her ongoing impeachment trial.
During Wednesday’s proceedings, Gencorp in-house corporate legal counsel Atty. Suzette Balucanag-Punay acknowledged that the corporation made monthly payments described as a “return of investment,” but admitted she could not produce documents to substantiate the transaction.
She also conceded she was uncertain if her terminology was accurate and had not personally seen the relevant investment records.
Former Surigao del Norte 2nd District Representative Robert Ace Barbers, spokesperson and adviser for the House prosecution panel, highlighted the lack of documentary evidence as a significant evidentiary gap in the defense’s case.
“Kung may monthly return of investment, malinaw na may tinutukoy na investment. Ang tanong: Kaninong investment ito, magkano, kailan inilagak, at bakit walang malinaw na dokumentong naipakita?” Barbers asked.
Barbers noted that the witness’s inability to verify the claims weakened the defense’s explanation regarding the financial transactions, which have been a point of contention as the prosecution investigates Duterte’s alleged business participation and potential conflicts of interest.
“For someone presented by the defense to explain these financial transactions, the admission that she had not seen the investment documents and was not even sure of the terminology she used leaves a glaring evidentiary gap,” Barbers said.
“Hindi sapat ang haka-haka, hindi sapat ang sariling interpretasyon. Nasaan ang mga dokumento?” he added.
Constitutional Scrutiny on Public Officials
The prosecution emphasized that the monthly payments warrant careful review under Article VII, Section 13 of the Philippine Constitution, which prohibits high-ranking government officials like the Vice President from holding prohibited business interests and participating in ventures that pose conflicts of interest.
Barbers stated that the impeachment court must evaluate whether the Gencorp arrangement violates these constitutional restrictions, particularly considering the nature of the corporation’s operations and any potential government privileges it may hold.