Bloodbath

VP Sara Duterte said she wants a bloodbath in her impeachment trial. She did not explain exactly what she meant by bloodbath. Maybe she was foreseeing a contentious hearing, given the nature of the impeachment charges.

It could well be a bloodbath because VP Sara will be simultaneously facing trial in two courts: the Senate and the “Court of Public Opinion.”

The Senate may declare her not guilty of the charges because of the political leanings of the senators. But the public may see her as guilty based on how well the House prosecutors present their case.

The impeachment complaint endorsed by 215 members of the House of Representatives on Feb. 5, 2025, has been transmitted to the Senate, which will serve as the impeachment court. A two-thirds majority vote is required to convict and remove VP Sara from office.

The complaint outlines seven articles of impeachment, accusing her of serious misconduct during her tenure as Vice President and previously, as Secretary of Education.

Here are the key allegations against the Vice President:

Conspiracy to commit assassination – Duterte allegedly claimed in a November 2024 press conference that she had arranged for someone to kill President Marcos, First Lady Liza Marcos and House Speaker Martin Romualdez, should she be assassinated. This statement is cited as a violation of public trust and a culpable breach of the Constitution.

Misuse of confidential funds: Investigations revealed that VP Sara’s offices misused at least P612.5 million in confidential funds. The Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd) allegedly submitted falsified liquidation documents, including receipts with incorrect dates and illegible signatures. These actions are considered malversation and graft.

Bribery and corruption: VP Sara is accused of distributing cash envelopes to high-ranking DepEd officials, including former undersecretary Gloria Jumamil-Mercado and others, in exchange for favorable decisions. This constitutes bribery and corruption under Philippine law.

Unexplained wealth: Her Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) allegedly failed to disclose significant increases in her wealth, raising concerns of illicit accumulation of assets.

Extrajudicial killings: VP Sara is implicated in extrajudicial killings in Davao City, linked to the so-called Davao Death Squad during her tenure as mayor. This charge involves conspiracy to commit murder and other high crimes.

Political destabilization: She is accused of undermining the Marcos administration by organizing rallies calling for the president’s resignation and obstructing congressional investigations. These actions are considered acts of destabilization and sedition.

Overall conduct: The cumulative effect of her actions, including those listed above, is cited as a betrayal of public trust and a culpable violation of the Constitution.

There is no indication what kind of evidence will be presented by the House prosecutors during the trial. It seems some of the charges can be easily defended as exercise of free speech.

What looks most interesting are the charges involving money: misuse of confidential funds and unexplained wealth.

The problem with the confidential funds charge is that the President and other officials also have such funds and they have never explained how they used those.

The unexplained wealth charge is the most interesting. That will have to involve opening the bank accounts of VP Sara which is now protected by bank privacy laws.

It will be recalled that former senator Antonio Trillanes IV has repeatedly accused president Rodrigo Duterte of concealing substantial undeclared wealth in various bank accounts held jointly with VP Sara. These allegations were partially corroborated by an official from the Office of the Ombudsman.

In 2017, Trillanes presented documents suggesting that Duterte held over P2 billion in deposits across multiple bank accounts. These documents were reportedly obtained from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC).

Deputy Ombudsman Arthur Carandang confirmed that the Ombudsman had received bank transaction records from the AMLC, stating that they were “more or less” consistent with the documents Trillanes had submitted.

Despite this partial confirmation, the Ombudsman later closed its investigation into Duterte’s alleged ill-gotten wealth. The closure was attributed to the AMLC’s failure to provide essential data, such as confirmation of the authenticity of the bank records and details about the sources of the funds.

In response to these allegations, president Duterte accused Trillanes of fabricating evidence and challenged him to prove the existence of the alleged bank accounts. Trillanes, in turn, submitted bank secrecy waivers to the AMLC and the Ombudsman, urging Duterte to do the same to facilitate a transparent investigation.

The House prosecution panel must now overcome the legal issues hindering the confirmation of the authenticity of Trillanes’ supposed AMLC records.

AMLC officials at the time of the Trillanes exposé may have to be subpoenaed. Bank officials, notably BPI whose branch in Julia Vargas in Ortigas Center had the Duterte account, will likely also have to testify.

Recall that the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona in 2012 had a dramatic turning point when documents from the AMLC were presented. These documents substantiated allegations that Corona had failed to disclose substantial assets, leading to his conviction.

Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales presented a 17-page AMLC report to the Senate impeachment court, detailing that Corona maintained 82 dollar-denominated accounts across five banks.

The defense contested the admissibility of the AMLC documents, arguing that they were obtained without a court order or Corona’s consent, potentially violating his constitutional right to privacy. However, the Senate impeachment court allowed the evidence, emphasizing the public interest in holding public officials accountable.

Consent from the account holder is not always necessary for the AMLC to access bank records during an impeachment trial. The Bank Secrecy Law provides exceptions to the secrecy rule, particularly in impeachment and money laundering cases.

Proving unexplained or hidden wealth is the challenge facing the House prosecutors in the VP impeachment case. The other articles of impeachment seem flimsy. But opening the bank records will indeed be bloody.

Boo Chanco’s email address is [email protected]. Follow him on X @boochanco