THE Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) needs to audit the tax records of Vice President Sara Duterte to establish the nature of her business income, a BIR official testified at Duterte’s impeachment trial on Friday.
On questioning by the defense, Anne Loraine Garcia-Marquez, chief of staff of the BIR Office of the Commissioner, acknowledged that only by examining the vice president’s transactional documents such as invoices, receipts and contracts can it be determined how she earned her business income.
Defense counsel Kristine Ferrer had questioned if the BIR had enough evidence to establish Duterte’s tax deficiencies without conducting an audit.
Garcia-Marquez said the BIR had Duterte’s Certificate of Registration, which listed her registered activity as “professional” in 2006 and “legal activities” in a subsequent registration dated May 4, 2018.
Asked if the BIR had a more recent certification establishing the nature of Duterte’s income, Garcia-Marquez said taxpayers are required under Section 236 of the National Internal Revenue Code to update their registration when their business activities change.
She explained that taxpayers initially issued a Taxpayer Identification Number may subsequently register a business or update their existing registration to reflect their activities.
Ferrer pressed the BIR official if the registration entries alone were sufficient to establish that Duterte’s business income came from practicing law, particularly because the audited financial statements did not specify the nature of the income.
Garcia-Marquez said her conclusion was based on Duterte’s registered activity.
She said an audit of the invoices, receipts, contracts and other supporting documents would enable the BIR to determine the true nature of the vice president’s income.
The prosecution earlier presented financial evidence which it said supports allegations of unexplained wealth under Article II of the impeachment complaint.
The prosecution and defense argued at length over a Letter of Authority (LOA) the BIR issued to Duterte last on May 29, 2026, which Garcia-Marquez confirmed during her testimony.
The defense also presented the LOA concerning Duterte’s husband, Manases Carpio, including documents relating to the couple’s income tax payments.
An LOA authorizes the BIR to audit someone’s books for a particular taxable year. Any audit without a LOA is legally void.
The presentation of the LOA prompted an objection from the prosecution, which raised concerns over the confidentiality of the records displayed on the courtroom screen.
The defense maintained it had obtained Duterte’s consent to present the documents during the proceedings.
Garcia-Marquez had testified about the reported combined earnings of Duterte and Carpio that exceeded P85.34 million.
Ferrer cited Revenue Regulations 22-2020, which she said requires tax examiners or revenue district offices to issue notices of discrepancy under the prescribed circumstances.
Garcia-Marquez acknowledged the regulation but declined to confirm whether a notice had been issued to Duterte and Carpio, citing the confidentiality of taxpayer information and ongoing investigations.
Ferrer, however, presented copies of the BIR’s LOAs for Duterte and Carpio during the cross-examination, prompting a dispute over the public disclosure of confidential tax documents.
Private prosecutor Erwin Matib objected, noting that the defense had previously opposed the disclosure of confidential tax information during the prosecution’s direct examination of the BIR witness on Thursday.
Ferrer countered that the taxpayers had consented to the disclosure. Presiding officer Francis Escudero allowed the defense to proceed.
On Thursday, Garcia-Marquez testified that Duterte and Carpio had combined reported income exceeding P85.34 million. The prosecution compared this figure with Duterte’s declared net worth of more than P98 million in her 2025 statement of assets, liabilities and net worth.
In a related development, the House prosecution panel has finalized its decision to drop the bribery charge against Duterte.
House prosecutor and Bukidnon 2nd District Rep. Jonathan Keith Flores confirmed on Friday that the panel had filed a manifestation informing the court of its decision.
“We filed our manifestation last Tuesday that we would be dropping the bribery charge,” Flores said.
The charge, under Article III of the impeachment complaint, alleges that Duterte bribed Department of Education officials to influence procurement decisions while she was Education secretary.
Flores said the prosecution would complete its presentation under Article II, which focuses on unexplained wealth, before resting its case without pursuing the bribery allegations.
He said the panel believed it had presented sufficient evidence on the three other impeachment articles and wanted to avoid unnecessarily prolonging the trial.
The prosecution has also presented evidence on Article I, involving the alleged misuse of confidential funds by the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education, and Article IV, concerning Duterte’s alleged threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., first lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez during a November 2024 livestream.
House prosecutor and 1-Rider Party-list Rep. Rodge Gutierrez said dropping one article would not affect the standing of the others.
“All the articles of impeachment that were filed stand on their own,” Gutierrez said.
