A FORMER Sandiganbayan presiding justice told the House impeachment court Monday that the Constitution prohibits the President and Vice President from directly or indirectly engaging in business while in office, as prosecutors began presenting evidence under the unexplained wealth charge against Vice President Sara Duterte.
Former Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang testified that the prohibition is expressly provided under Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
During direct examination, Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno asked whether the President or Vice President could participate in business while serving in office.
“Hindi po,” Cabotaje-Tang replied.
She explained that the constitutional restriction covers not only direct participation but also arrangements in which an official uses another person to conduct business or hold interests on the official’s behalf.
“Indirectly simply means hindi sila gumagawa, pero iba ang gumagawa but in their name,” she said.
Asked who would ultimately benefit from such an arrangement, Cabotaje-Tang said the official would be the beneficiary.
The former Sandiganbayan official also explained the concept of beneficial ownership, referring to cases in which the person who actually owns or benefits from property or a corporate interest is different from the individual whose name appears in official documents.
She said the distinction is important in determining the real owner or beneficiary of an asset or financial interest.
Cabotaje-Tang further testified that the constitutional restrictions are particularly stringent for the President, Vice President and other senior executive officials.
She cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, which recognized the greater potential for abuse of authority given the positions occupied by top government officials.
According to Cabotaje-Tang, the constitutional provisions impose “sweeping, all-embracing prohibitions” on the President and other covered officials.
The restrictions include holding a financial interest in any government contract, franchise or special privilege granted by the government. Officials are likewise required to avoid conflicts between their private interests and their official duties.
Cabotaje-Tang defined a conflict of interest as a situation in which an official’s private interest runs contrary to the interests of the government the official serves.
The former Sandiganbayan justice served as the prosecution’s first witness under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment, which covers allegations concerning Duterte’s unexplained wealth, Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs), and business and financial interests.
Her testimony focused on the constitutional and legal framework governing business participation, beneficial ownership and conflicts of interest. She did not make a factual determination on whether Duterte herself violated any of the restrictions.
The House prosecution is expected to present corporate, government and financial records in succeeding hearings as it builds its case on the allegations against the Vice President.
About the Author
