FORMER senator Antonio Trillanes IV on Friday said more than P319 million from Chinese entities and corporations flowed into CALE88, a company owned by Vice President Sara Duterte’s husband, Manases “Mans” Carpio.
Another P150 million went into Tapang at Malasakit, an organization associated with Duterte, Trillanes said during a press conference.
Based on a document Trillanes presented during the briefing, Tapang At Malasakit received P150 million in 2019 from the Chinese Embassy in Manila for the construction of 13 school buildings, as stated in a memorandum of understanding dated Aug. 8, 2018.
He said the transactions should be scrutinized because properties acquired during marriage may have implications on the vice president’s required financial disclosures.
Trillanes questioned the disparity between the alleged amount deposited and the value of goods reportedly purchased, citing banana chips as an example.
“Even if we say, fine, they bought P200 million worth of banana chips, but P300 million was deposited. That’s where you’ll see it,” he said.
Trillanes said the deals represented Chinese support for the Duterte-Carpio couple, raising national security concerns over the acceptance of funds from a foreign government.
“This is China’s way of supporting the Duterte couple. This is clear,” he said. “That’s why we should be appalled by this, because she is the vice president. There are national security implications.”
The Manila Times has comment from Duterte’s spokesman, Paolo Panelo, and the Chinese Embassy, on Trillanes’ allegations.
Trillanes also took a swipe at Senate impeachment court Presiding Officer Francis Escudero over delays in the trial of the vice president.
“If the impeachment trial is boring, it’s the fault entirely of the presiding officer,” Trillanes said, arguing that Escudero was effectively the one making decisions on the proceedings.
He also criticized Escudero’s handling of Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) records, saying the defense already had the documents for weeks but was still allowed more time to review them.
“If the presiding officer were objective, that would be settled — just present it,” he said, adding that the delay had wasted “a day and a half.”
Trillanes also questioned why the impeachment court did not issue a subpoena for him after the prosecution sought to present him as a witness.
“Why didn’t you issue a subpoena for Trillanes?... Why didn’t he issue it? Let’s not beat around the bush — that is the crux of the matter,” he said.
The court had deferred issuing a subpoena for Trillanes, saying the prosecution should first present the AMLC witness or relevant bank records that would establish the basis for his expected testimony.
Trillanes was dropped from the House prosecution panel’s witness list on Thursday after he asked to be withdrawn. He later said he had requested the move to ease the pressure on the prosecution panel.
His withdrawal came as the prosecution was preparing to present AMLC Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura on Article II of the impeachment complaint, which centers on allegations of unexplained wealth.
The defense secured a postponement of Buenaventura’s testimony after citing the volume of the AMLC documents and confidentiality concerns.
Escudero granted the request and moved the AMLC presentation to Monday, Oct. 5.
The trial had been expected to move into the financial evidence portion of Article II after two registers of deeds testified on properties acquired by Carpio that prosecutors claimed were not reflected in Duterte and Carpio’s joint statements of assets, liabilities and net worth.
Reginald Tongol, the impeachment court’s spokesman, said in a Zoom interview on Friday whatever Trillanes disclosed at his press conference cannot be considered evidence in Duterte’s trial.
“If the court or the senator-judges want to hear those statements formally, then he may be summoned to appear before the court and testify,” Tongol said.
He explained that the court did not issue a subpoena for Trillanes because the prosecution ultimately did not identify him as a witness it would present during the week.
Tongol said Trillanes did not violate Rule 18, or the court’s sub judice rule, because he is not a party, counsel or witness participating in the proceedings.
Malacañang Press Officer Claire Castro said Trillanes’ claim that Duterte received money from the Chinese government is an “act of betrayal” if proven to be true.
Castro said that while the administration will refrain from making premature judgements, claims involving foreign influence and national security must be thoroughly investigated if backed by sufficient evidence.
“It can be considered an act of treason against the country for Filipinos — especially public officials — to turn a blind eye to the violence inflicted upon our fishermen by foreigners, or to be willing to give away parts of our territory or rights in the West Philippine Sea, simply because they have been blinded by money, leading them to abandon their love for the motherland and sell out our freedom,” she said.
In a related development, Tongol said the impeachment court could reach a verdict as early as Dec. 16.
He said the proceedings were moving faster now because the House prosecution has reduced the number of witnesses it plans to present.
Tongol said that at the current pace, the trial could conclude before Congress goes on its holiday recess in the second week of December, rather than extending into February or March as earlier anticipated.
The court has authorized the presentation of bank, AMLC and the Bureau of Internal Revenue records relevant to Article II after it ruled that the requested documents were sufficiently relevant and material to the allegations.
The prosecution further shortened its case earlier when it dropped 15 remaining witnesses for Article I, which involves allegations concerning the misuse and misappropriation of P612.5 million in confidential funds. Prosecutors instead reserved the option of presenting Duterte herself.
Tongol said the proceedings could move even faster if prosecutors decide not to pursue the impeachment article involving alleged bribery of Department of Education officials when Duterte was Education secretary.
The prosecution had targeted October for completing the submission of evidence.
