MANILA, Philippines — Millions of pesos in cash reported by Vice President Sara Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, came under scrutiny Thursday as the prosecution presented a Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) official to testify on their income, tax records and assets in the impeachment trial.
The prosecution is seeking to establish that the couple’s reported income does not match their declared net worth and that Duterte had undeclared assets, including millions of pesos in cash.
During the 36th day of the impeachment trial, Private prosecutor Erwin Matib said the prosecution’s offer of testimony includes the claim that the Duterte-Carpio couple reported cash balances of P21 million in 2022, P28 million in 2023, P15 million in 2024, and P13 million in 2025, based on their audited financial statements.
BIR Office of the Commissioner Chief of Staff Anne Loraine Garcia-Marquez is the prosecution’s witness in its effort to substantiate the allegations of unexplained wealth.
Matib said Garcia-Marquez’s testimony was intended to show that Duterte and Carpio’s reported income allegedly did not square with their declared net worth and that Duterte had undeclared assets.
The prosecution also intends to establish through Garcia-Marquez that Duterte allegedly violated the Constitution and continued to own Cale88, a banana chips exporter that reportedly received millions of pesos in remittances from China.
Garcia-Marquez told the Senate impeachment court that the BIR had submitted the subpoenaed tax records and information involving Duterte, Carpio and identified business entities.
Based on Duterte’s BIR certificate of registration, Garcia-Marquez said the vice president was registered as a “professional,” with “legal activities” listed as her primary line of business.
The witness said this remained Duterte’s registered line of business, although she has another business activity that was not identified in the testimony.
The defense, meanwhile, asked the impeachment court to prohibit the prosecution from displaying copies of Duterte’s tax returns on screen, citing the Data Privacy Act.
Defense counsel Kristine Ferrer said the court’s authorization only allowed it to inspect or view the tax returns.
“The authorization is only limited or given to the Senate impeachment court to inspect or view the tax returns,” Ferrer said.
She stressed that Duterte was not waiving her right to question the legality of the submission of the tax returns before the impeachment court.
Ferrer asked the court to instruct the prosecution not to display copies of the tax returns and related summaries on screen.
Matib countered that Ferrer’s manifestation effectively amounted to a motion for reconsideration of the impeachment court’s previous ruling.
He argued that it would be useless for the court to have the records if the prosecution could not show them during the proceedings.
Presiding Officer Francis Escudero said the court would address the issue when necessary, noting that Matib had yet to display any of the documents.
“We’ll cross the bridge when we get there,” Escudero said.
