Sara’s dirty money

Amid seeming boredom among the populace and among the hard-working judges of the 20-senator Senate impeachment court (IC), the trial of Vice President Sara Z. Duterte has entered its most crucial chapter.

Crucial because the trial this week focuses on Article II, unexplained wealth. If wealth is not explained, the presumption is that the wealth is ill-gotten, stolen or illegal money. And the money is subject to forfeiture or seizure by the government. Article II or unexplained wealth is the last nail that will nail Sara Duterte to the cross of conviction.

In the old days, during Jesus’ time, thieves were nailed on the cross to die. Today, thieves in government don’t even need to die. They are simply ousted from their job and barred from holding any public office ever again. That is the rule for impeachable officials like VP Sara.

Now, since thievery is SOP among government officials, people seem to accept it as normal among our officials. “Lahat naman sila magnanakaw” is a familiar refrain. So if you recite acts of thievery, like in an impeachment court, it becomes boring minutiae. Minor items like retailing lies in sachets of shampoo or toothpaste.

Sara is accused of four crimes under four Articles of Impeachment. Article I is the VP’s misuse or pocketing P612.5 million of taxpayers’ money and accounting for it by concocting 5,000 fictitious names as alleged recipients, including two whose surname is vagina; II) unexplained wealth; III) bribery; she regularly bribed underlings so that they become pliable during biddings (DepEd under Sara had a P900-billion budget) and IV) grave threats; online, she disclosed she hired assassin/s to kill President Marcos Jr., First Lady Louise Araneta Marcos and former speaker Martin Romualdez.

The IC is done with Article I (the missing P612.5-million taxpayers’ money) and Article IV, grave threats. The prosecution presented damning evidence enough for the IC to convict Sara on those two counts.

Article II (unexplained wealth) is easy to prove.

There is a mountain of evidence to prove VP Sara piled up wealth beyond her capacity to earn the billions of loot legally. Sara’s net worth increased from P7.25 million in 2007 to P88.51 million in 2024, and further to P91.4 million, a 12-fold increase. Yet during all those years, Sara, as a public official, earned only legitimately at most P30 million. If you earned only P30 million in salaries, how could your net worth be triple the amount (P91.4 million)?

In the records of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), P6.771 billion went in and out, into the bank accounts of Sara and her husband Manases Carpio. Of the P6.771 billion, P4.42 billion was inflow.

“The magnitude of these transactions demonstrates that the billions of pesos flowing through the accounts of respondent and her spouse cannot be reconciled with their declared total income, particularly respondent’s total salary income of just approximately P30 million,” says the House of Representatives’ Articles of Impeachment signed by 257 congressmen, 81 percent of the total number of congressmen.

In yesterday’s Day 33 of Sara’s trial (the longest so far conducted for an impeached official), the prosecution presented lawyer Ronel Buenaventura, the AMLC executive director. He and his staff had diligently curated the records, in and out, of transactions in the bank accounts of Sara and husband Manases.

Per prosecution lawyer Mae S. Divinagracia (Ateneo Law, formerly with ACCRALaw), Buenaventura’s testimony is to prove that:

1. Billions worth of transactions passed through the accounts of the respondent and her husband. From 2007 to 2025, AMLC recorded P4.4 billion entering the bank accounts of Sara and her husband, amounts “too big and suspicious.” Yet, during 2020 to 2024, Sara did not declare any cash holdings in her statement of assets, liabilities and net worth. Where did the money go?

2.  Sara’s husband walked out of two banks with P41 million in cash in a single day. “Sa loob lamang ng isang araw noong Agosto 6, 2024, P41 million ang kinuha na cash ni Atty. Carpio. P23 million sa BDO at P18 million sa PNB. Pero sa kaniyang 2024 SALN walang cash na idineklara,” noted lawyer Mae.

3. A person allegedly linked to illegal drugs bought checks naming the respondent as beneficiary.

“Noong 2011 at 2012, bumili si Samuel Cang Uy, isang taong diumano’y may kinalaman sa ilegal na droga, at ang kaniyang mga anak ng mga tseke na si VP Sara ang benepisyaryo. P14,881,692.14 ang kabuuang halaga. Sila ang naglabas ng pera, pero si VP Sara ang tumanggap nito.”

4. Banks and insurers flagged them (Sara and Manases) again and again: “34 na suspicious transaction reports ang nasa file ng respondent. 27 derogatory report ang isinampa tungkol sa kaniya at 70 naman tungkol kay Atty. Carpio. Ang mga dahilan: graft and corrupt practices at malversation of public funds. Posibleng kaugnayan sa ilegal na droga at mga transaksyong konektado sa anomalya sa flood control. Hindi ito iisang alarma, paulit-ulit itong babala mula sa iba’t ibang institusyon sa loob ng maraming taon.”

5. Money from China poured into a food manufacturing company of her husband.

Atty. Mae: “Ang Calle88 Foods Corp. ay itinatag lamang noong 2021 at 45 percent ay hawak ni Atty. Carpio at tumanggap ng P319 million na remittance mula sa mga kumpanya sa China. Tatlo dito ang iniulat ng bangko bilang kahina-hinala. Walang legal trade obligation. Walang layunin. At walang katwirang pang-ekonomiya.”

6. Their companies moved billions more.

Mae: “Mula 2022 hanggang 2025, halos P4.5 billion ang kabuuang pumasok at lumabas sa 15 corporations kung saan may interes ang mag-asawa. Iba pa ito sa P4.4 billion na pumasok at lumabas sa accounts ng mag-asawa.”

7. Banks and insurers report these transactions because this is how dirty money moves.

The AMLC law mandates reporting of such big transactions.

“Because that’s how illegal money is transacted,” says Atty. Mae Divinagracia.

The response of Sara’s defense counsel, the now notorious bastos lawyer Mark Vinluan: technicalities.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]