Unexplained wealth can be ground for public official's removal, ex-Sandiganbayan justice testifies

A public official’s acquisition of unexplained wealth can be a ground for removal from office, former Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang said Monday. Tang gave the testimony during Day 24 of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, where she was presented as an expert on public accountability and anti-corruption laws, including the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Civil Forfeiture Law, and the law governing Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs). House prosecutor and Akbayan party-list Rep. Chel Diokno said the prosecution presented Tang as a witness to provide the senator-judges and the public with a legal framework on how the anti-graft court assesses evidence involving properties acquired by public officials while in office. Following an objection from the defense panel, the impeachment court presiding officer, Sen. Francis Escudero, ruled that Tang was not testifying on the specific allegations raised by the prosecution in the impeachment case against Duterte. During her direct examination, Tang said a public official found to have unexplained wealth could result in his or her removal or dismissal under existing anti-corruption laws. “What it means is that if a public officer is found to have unexplained wealth in accordance with Republic Act 1379, that is a ground for removal or dismissal under Republic Act 3019,” she said. Republic Act No. 1379, or the law declaring the forfeiture in favor of the State of property found to have been unlawfully acquired by a public officer or employee, provides for the forfeiture of such property. Republic Act No. 3019, meanwhile, is the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Tang likewise confirmed that a public official’s property is presumed to have been unlawfully acquired if it is proven that the property was acquired during the official’s incumbency at a cost “manifestly out of proportion to his/her salary as public officer or employee and to his/her other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property” under RA 1379. Tang, however, clarified that the presumption that a property was unlawfully acquired does not amount to a guilty verdict for a crime. “If it is shown that an official acquired property that is grossly or manifestly disproportionate to his salary, lawful income and income from lawfully acquired properties, it is presumed to have been unlawfully acquired. This presumption, however, is rebuttable,” Tang said. “This means that if a public official can satisfactorily explain how he or she lawfully acquired those properties, that presumption will no longer apply,” she added. Tang was presented as a prosecution witness under Article 2 of the impeachment complaint, which alleges that Duterte accumulated unexplained wealth through the following: During a House justice committee hearing on the impeachment complaints against Duterte in April, lawyer Karen Batu, the SALN custodian of the Office of the Ombudsman, confirmed that the vice president did not declare any cash on hand or bank deposits in her SALNs from 2019 to 2024. Duterte has no declared cash on hand, bank deposits from 2019 to 2024, the SALNs reportedly showed. “Based on the submitted SALNs, walang nakalagay na cash on hand or deposit (Based on the submitted SALNs, there was none),” Batu then told the House committee.— MCG, GMA News