“‘Pag dineklara niya na meron siyang nagmamay-ari siyang mga kumpanya, that’s a violation of Article 7, Section 13 dahil bawal sa isang VP na magmay-ari ng isang kumpanya o many businesses for that matter.” ~Senator Judge Raffy Tulfo
“Attorney Del Rosario, sa pananaw po ba ng SEC, bawal iyon? Bawal po ba magmay-ari ng korporasyon ang isang Pangulo at Ikalawang Pangulo?” ~Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero
Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero stopped Senator Raffy Tulfo from forcing prosecutors to make premature legal conclusions during the Senate hearing.
Tulfo questioned if Vice President Sara Duterte earned illegal income from private companies while holding public office. However, Escudero immediately reminded the panel that prosecutors must prove facts rather than state conclusions of law.
Consequently, Tulfo revised his line of questioning to focus on official financial documents and tax records instead.
MORE: SEC Witness Del Rosario Exposes ₱1.04B Sales Surge for GenCorp Following VP Sara Election
Tulfo initially asserted that sitting public officials cannot hold business stakes under Article 7, Section 13. Furthermore, he questioned whether receiving salaries or allowances from these firms constitutes a constitutional violation.
Escudero cautioned that determining legal violations remains the sole discretion of the senator-judges presiding over the case.
Hindi Bawal?
Following the warning, Tulfo asked prosecution lawyer Erwin Matib about available documents regarding corporate profits. Matib explained that Securities and Exchange Commission financial statements show whether companies earned or lost money.
In addition, Matib noted that Bureau of Internal Revenue tax returns will clarify individual earnings. Del Rosario from the SEC added that corporate bylaws determine whether board members can legally receive compensation.
SEC witness Gerardo Del Rosario confirmed that receiving salaries or per diems is permitted if corporate rules allow it. “Hindi bawal ‘yon,” Del Rosario testified regarding corporate compensation for company officers.
Raffy’s Reasoning
According to Tulfo’s reasoning, the Vice President was caught in an inescapable legal dilemma between two conflicting constitutional obligations:
If she omitted the businesses from her SALN: Failing to declare her family’s corporate holdings in her sworn SALN would constitute non-declaration, which is considered a culpable violation of the Constitution.
If she declared the businesses in her SALN: Admitting and listing her corporate ownership in her SALN would serve as self-declared evidence of violating Article VII, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution, which prohibits high-ranking executive officials (including the Vice President) from holding business interests or participating in any private business.
Tulfo expressed bewilderment that despite both the Vice President and her husband (Attorney Mans Carpio) being lawyers, none of their legal advisors instructed her to divest from these corporate ventures upon taking office to avoid this trap altogether.
Meanwhile, prosecution lawyers confirmed that detailed employee records are not typically stored within SEC filings. Therefore, future proceedings will examine BIR tax documents to verify actual payments to company officials.
SEC Director Gerardo Del Rosario testified that the SEC has no directive or policy prohibiting mere passive stock ownership or requiring the agency to report public officials for simply holding corporate shares.
Free Pdf/Doc Download:
1987 Philippine Constitution
