The House impeachment prosecution panel has concluded its presentation of evidence to convict Sara Zimmerman Duterte and oust her as the country’s vice president. The ouster is for life from any public office.
Testimonial and pieces of evidence for three Articles of Impeachment were presented before the Senate impeachment court (IC) during 37 trial days from July 6, 2026 to Oct. 9, 2026 – the longest impeachment trial period in our history and the most substantial – the removal of a sitting vice president
“The end is near,” beamed a prosecution spokesman.
Three cases were presented against VP Duterte:
1) Grave threats (Article IV of the Articles of Impeachment).
On Nov. 23, 2024, Sara confessed online to have hired assassin/s to kill President Marcos Jr., First Lady Louise Araneta Marcos and then Speaker Martin Romualdez.
Sara actually had two online videos making the threats. A third video showed her saying the threats were to exact revenge. The National Bureau of Investigation said Sara had the intent, motive and capability to carry out her threats. She, after all, is the VP. If the Marcos dies, she herself succeeds him as the president.
2) Article I, her pocketing or misuse of P612.5 million (P500 million from the Office of the Vice President and P112. 5 million from the Department of Education) of taxpayers’ money disguised as confidential and intelligence funds; Sara claimed 5,000 fictitious names of alleged recipients, including people named after restaurants, food and grocery items, animals and even a vagina.
3) Unexplained wealth (Article II).
Three major allegations in this article: a) Sara amassed unexplained wealth manifestly disproportionate to her lawful income and earnings during her incumbency; b) she failed to fully and truthfully disclose all her and her spouse’s assets, liabilities and net worth in her statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) for the years 2022, 2023 and 2024; and c) she failed to divest and instead willfully continued all her business interests during her tenure as Vice President for the years 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025.
The evidence on the unexplained wealth case is explosive and has dumbfounded pro-Duterte senators. Sara is a billionaire, along with her husband, Manases Carpio, a lawyer. During years in public office, from 2007 to 2025, a colossal P4.4 billion flowed in and out of their joint bank accounts in several banks.
The mind-boggling transactions, as required by law, were carefully curated by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), a superbody composed of the Bangko Sentral governor, the Insurance commissioner and the chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Sara and Manases had a combined after-tax net income of only P85.34 million during 2007 to 2025, per BIR records presented at the trial. Yet, undeclared income and assets were at least P817 million in the past three years alone.
Indications are that Sara received money regularly from a Chinese drug lord and from Chinese government-owned companies as payola. Is she a traitor to our country?
The AMLC confirmed records showing that Cale88 Foods Corp. – a food company linked to her husband, Manases Carpio – received approximately P319 million (about $5.08 million) in inward remittances from entities in mainland China and Hong Kong
As VP, Sara owned and engaged in businesses despite the Constitution’s ban on the president and vice president from engaging in any business. Davao mayors are also not allowed to engage in any business or practice their profession. She did.
On Oct. 9, the final day of the prosecution presentation, prosecution lawyer Rep. Chel Diokno presented financial forensic expert, lawyer-CPA Alexander Cabrera. He is a former chairman of Isla Lipana & Co., the Philippine member firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). Cabrera combed through and connected bank records (SALNs), Securities and Exchange Commission filings and audited financial statements to explain the significance of the transactions examined during the trial.
Cabrera testified that during 2022 to 2025 alone, Vice President Sara and her husband, Mans Carpio, had P817.87 million in alleged undeclared assets and unexplained wealth. Yet, at the end of 2025, Sara declared a net worth of just P88 million. About 90 percent of Sara’s net worth cannot be explained.
House impeachment team adviser and spokesman Ace Barbers said financial forensic expert Alexander Cabrera, the prosecution’s final witness, tied together the evidence supporting Article II of the impeachment complaint against Duterte.
“I must say that this last witness na pinresenta natin ended with a bang,” Barbers said at a post-trial press briefing. Evidence presented under Article II easily secures Duterte’s conviction.
The financial transactions and corporate arrangements indicated deliberate concealment of assets, which he described as betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution.
Article XI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution requires public officers to declare their assets, liabilities and net worth.
Republic Act (RA) 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, mandates all public officials to file, under oath, their SALNs and a Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections and those of their spouses and unmarried children below 18. The two documents must contain the following information:
• Real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value and current fair market value;
• Personal property and acquisition cost;
• All other assets such as investments, cash on hand or in banks, stocks, bonds and the like;
• Liabilities;
• All business interests and financial connections.
At the same time, RA 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, requires public officials to yearly file a true, detailed sworn statement of assets and liabilities, including a statement of the amounts and sources of income, the amounts of personal and family expenses and the amount of taxes paid.
The presumption under RA 1379 (Unexplained Wealth Act) Section 2 explicitly states that if a public official acquires property or holds bank deposits during their incumbency that are manifestly out of proportion to their lawful salary and declared income, those assets are presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired.
* * *
Email: biznewsasia@gmail.com