What’s the meaning of unexplained wealth?

The most devastating charge against Vice President Sara Duterte, much more than the alleged misuse of confidential funds and supposed bribery, is unexplained wealth. Under Philippine law, unexplained wealth refers to property or assets acquired by a public official or employee that are manifestly out of proportion to their salary and other lawful income. This is her Waterloo, her Achilles heel.

Republic Act No. 1379 is the primary law targeting ill-gotten and unexplained wealth. It establishes that any property acquired by a public officer that is disproportionate to their legitimate income is presumed to have been unlawfully acquired. She has always declared that she does not use public funds when she travels abroad, no less than 19 times. Where did she get the money to finance such excessive foreign travels? Where did she get the funds to finance the legal fees she pays to her multiple lawyers?

Section 8 of Republic Act No 3018, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act treats unexplained wealth exceeding lawful income as a ground for administrative suspension or dismissal from public service. If there are not enough senators to impeach her, then the government can still charge her before the Ombudsman who is expected to elevate the case before the Sandiganbayan. VP Sara still has a lot of mountains to climb. No amount of social media hype and no number of trolls can acquit her from the court.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that wealth acquired by a public officer during their time in office that clearly exceeds their lawful income is presumed ill-gotten and may be forfeited, even if registered under the names of other individuals. In a decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the Supreme Court’s 3rd Division upheld the forfeiture of properties, bank deposits, and investment accounts in the name of retired Lieutenant General Jacinto C. Ligot, as well as assets traced to him but registered under his wife, children, and relatives

Under Republic Act No. 1379, properties of public officers are presumed to be illegally acquired when they are manifestly out of proportion to their lawful income. This presumption applies not only to properties under the public officer’s name but also to those hidden or transferred to others, as long as true ownership can be traced to the public officer. The court noted that General Ligot’s wife and children did not have independent income sources but still owned properties and held significant bank and investment accounts under their names.

In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed the forfeiture of roughly ?155 million in real estate, bank deposits, and investments linked to General Ligot. The court ruled that properties held by relatives without independent financial capacity belong to the public officer. In another case, Lt. Col Rabusa v. The Republic, GR no 208183, it was held that unexplained wealth suits cases constitute exceptions to the standard bank secrecy restrictions, though foreign currency accounts retain strict protection under Republic Act No. 6426 absent direct consent.

The biggest headaches that confront the vice president are the challenges of reconciling the contents of three sets of documents: the SALNs she submitted to the Ombudsman, her Income Tax Returns and her bank deposits, in relation to the expenses of her excessive foreign travels, and her legal expenses. Not to mention her own family expenses. When there is a disproportion the burden of proof is shifted to the vice president to explain the discrepancies, if any.

It is indeed impossible to explain "unexplained wealth". It is a Gordian knot or, if you will, a Catch 22 puzzle that requires the wisdom of the Oracle of Delphi to explain. But then again, such a Sisyphean mystery might have been created in the labyrinth of her colorful life and excessive peregrinations.