SALN puzzle far from solved? Expert sees gaps in Duterte defense’s first witness

MANILA — The defense of Vice President Sara Duterte may have shown that a property was listed in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN), but it has yet to establish whether it was the same property acquired by her husband, a constitutional law professor said Tuesday.

Constitutional lawyer Ralph Sarmiento said the testimony of the defense’s first witness left important questions unanswered, particularly on the property allegedly acquired by lawyer Manases Carpio and its declaration in Duterte’s SALN.

“I think that we need further clarificatory evidence on that. So I think another witness is required to further supplement those particular details or gaps in the testimony left by yesterday’s witness,” Sarmiento said in a Headstart interview. 

Davao City assessor engineer Jaime Adalin testified at the Nov. 9 trial, discussing a 379-square-meter property in Matina Crossing, Davao City, which the defense claimed was reflected in Duterte’s SALN.

But Sarmiento said Adalin only established that the properties being discussed were in the same location, not necessarily that they were one and the same.

“I think it’s the beginning of the puzzle. You may consider yesterday’s testimony of Adalin as part of the puzzle that the defense was trying to complete or trying to solve. But I think it’s not yet the completed puzzle,” he said.

Sarmiento added that Adalin could testify on the property’s assessment and location, but was not in a position to establish details about the preparation of Duterte’s SALN.

The professor cautioned against judging the defense based on just one witness, saying it could still present additional evidence to address the gaps.

However, he said the defense had a much bigger task: explaining the prosecution’s allegations of at least P817 million in unexplained wealth.

“Number one, of course, you need to rebut each and every statement or each and every conclusion that was established by the prosecution,” Sarmiento said.

He said the defense should establish the legality of the sources of Duterte’s funds, account for the total amounts involved, and show that the acquired assets were properly declared when required by law.

It must also reconcile its explanations with bank records, Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) records, investments, insurance company documents and Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) records.

“So I think there will be a lot of explaining to do on the part of the defense,” he added.

Sarmiento also clarified why he declined to testify for Duterte’s defense after his name was initially included in its request for a subpoena.

He said he initially agreed to appear before the impeachment court if called upon to explain his constitutional interpretations as an independent academic, but not as a witness for either side.

“And so immediately I communicated with them and I told them that this would conflict with the independence that I was trying to maintain as an independent academic, as a constitutional law professor and as an independent legal analyst,” Sarmiento said.

He explained that being presented as a defense witness would create the impression that his legal opinions were being used to advance the Vice President’s case.

“And so it would create the impression that my constitutional interpretations are being presented to advance the cause of one side to this proceeding,” he said.

He said, however, that he would welcome an opportunity to appear as an amicus curiae, or friend of the court, to provide independent legal guidance.