MANILA, Philippines — A dinner bill exceeding P200,000 at an upscale restaurant in Japan has come under scrutiny during Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, with prosecution counsel questioning whether the spending was consistent with the modest lifestyle expected of public officials and their families.
House of Representatives' private prosecutor Amando Virgil Ligutan raised the issue while questioning defense witness Anel Martin Antero about a dinner on May 19, 2023, at Inakaya Ginza in Tokyo, Japan, where a group of 11 people reportedly incurred a bill of P205,007.29, charged to the credit card of Manases “Mans” Carpio, the vice president’s husband.
Ligutan argued that the amount was relevant to the allegation of unexplained wealth, particularly in determining whether Duterte and her husband were living within the standards of modesty expected of government officials.
“The issue is whether a P200,000 meal is ostentatious and whether the Vice President and her spouse are living a modest life. This is central to the allegation of unexplained wealth. The law provides that a public official and their family must live simply,” Ligutan said.
He also challenged the witness to consider whether ordinary Filipinos could afford such an expense.
“Can our fellow Filipinos afford to spend P200,000 in a single sitting? Is that what living a modest life means?” Ligutan asked.
Antero testified that the dinner was attended by 11 friends, including Carpio, during their vacation in Japan.
He said the group ordered tempura and seafood but admitted that he was personally surprised by the final bill.
“I was personally surprised because we did not expect the bill to be that expensive,” Antero told the impeachment court.
He said that Carpio’s credit card was used because some members of the group no longer had enough cash. However, he maintained that the expenses were subsequently divided among the attendees.
“It just so happened that Atty. Mans’ credit card was the one used for the payment,” Antero said, adding that his personal share amounted to approximately ¥40,000, or around P40,000.
Antero admitted that he brought both cash and a credit card during the Japan trip.
However, when Ligutan asked him to present proof that he had reimbursed Carpio, the witness acknowledged that he had no photographs from the dinner to corroborate the gathering.
Ligutan pressed Antero on the absence of supporting documentation, questioning whether other records could establish that all 11 individuals attended the dinner and subsequently paid their respective shares.
The questioning went beyond the circumstances surrounding the credit card transaction, with Ligutan bringing up the minimum wage in Metro Manila to emphasize the disparity between the restaurant bill and the earnings of ordinary Filipino workers.
He argued that the amount spent in a single sitting was relevant to determining whether the vice president and her family maintained a lifestyle consistent with the constitutional principle cited by the prosecution.
Defense counsel Lindon Bacquel objected, arguing that Ligutan’s questions went beyond the scope of Antero’s direct testimony, which concerned the circumstances surrounding the credit card charges.
Bacquel also maintained that neither Antero nor Carpio was on trial and questioned the relevance of the line of questioning.
During his testimony, Antero acknowledged that he was a longtime friend of Duterte and Carpio. He also confirmed that he was part of Carpio’s law firm and received compensation for his professional services.