Unexplained wealth can be ground for removal from office – ex-Sandiganbayan chief

Metro Manila, Philippines-  Unlawfully acquired unexplained wealth may become a basis for removing a public official from office after due proceedings, former Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang told the Impeachment Court on Monday, Sept. 14.

The prosecution has shifted to allegations involving Vice President Sara Duterte’s wealth, financial records and business interests in the impeachment trial. 

During questioning by court Presiding Officer Francis Escudero, Tang was asked whether a public official could be removed for intentionally failing to declare assets belonging to a spouse.

“Yes, sir,” Tang said, adding that this could become a basis for removal if, after due proceedings, the unlawful acquisition of unexplained wealth is established.

Tang said public officials are required to include their spouses’ assets in their Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth or SALNs.

But she drew a distinction between intentional concealment and assets that an official did not know existed.

Tang cited a Supreme Court case where an official’s explanation was accepted because the official was unaware of money belonging to the spouse.

“How could he have declared that money which was unknown to him?” Tang said, explaining that there would be no intentional concealment in such a situation.

If a spouse cannot show the legitimate means to acquire questionable properties and ownership of those assets can be traced to the public official, Tang said the assets could be attributed to the official.

The same principle could apply to a spouse’s business and related transactions, but she noted that the assets must be traceable to the public official.

Unexplained wealth presumption

Tang also laid out the conditions before a legal presumption involving unexplained wealth may arise.

Citing Supreme Court jurisprudence, she said the respondent must be a public officer, must have acquired substantial wealth or properties during incumbency, and the properties must be grossly disproportionate to lawful income and other legitimate sources.

Tang said an official must be given an opportunity to explain an apparent disparity between lawful income and accumulated wealth.

“According to Republic Act 1379, sir, may opportunity iyong official to explain kung merong manifest disproportionality from his lawful income at sa kanyang pagmamay-ari, iyong kanyang yaman,” the retired justice said, referring to the law on forfeiture for unlawfully acquired wealth. 

[Translation: “According to Republic Act 1379, the official has an opportunity to explain if there is a manifest disproportion between lawful income and the wealth or property owned.”]

Tang also said the questionable wealth must have been accumulated while the person was in public office.

The defense, however, established during cross-examination that Tang had no personal knowledge of the actual finances of Duterte and her husband, Manases Carpio.

Tang said she did not know Carpio’s income, the couple’s liabilities, passive income or investment earnings and could not personally determine whether Duterte’s declared wealth was disproportionate to her actual wealth.