September 14, 2026

Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang, a retired Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice, testified under oath after the prosecution offered her as a framework witness on anti-corruption laws, SALN disclosure, and constitutional limits on public officials.

Tang distinguished hidden, unexplained, and ill-gotten wealth and said grossly disproportionate wealth acquired during incumbency may create a rebuttable prima-facie presumption.

Tang testified that cash on hand and cash in bank must be specifically declared in a SALN, while an omission alone does not establish unexplained wealth because the public officer must have an opportunity to explain it.

Prosecutor Gerville Luistro characterized Article 2 as involving unexplained wealth, SALN violations, and non-divestment of financial and business interests.

On redirect, Rep. Jose Manuel "Chel" Diokno elicited testimony distinguishing impeachment from criminal adjudication after objecting that Justice Tang had no personal knowledge of the articles.

Defense counsel Mark C. Vinluan objected that Justice Tang was an unlisted surprise witness and said the defense had not received the anticipated materials needed to prepare for cross-examination.

On cross-examination, Vinluan challenged the need for a former magistrate's legal opinion and asked about Justice Cabotaje-Tang's case-specific knowledge; she said she had reached no conclusion of fact or law in this case.

Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo asked why Justice Cabotaje-Tang was being presented before fact witnesses on unexplained wealth and whether her testimony would offer legal conclusions. Prosecution counsel said she would provide an expert public-accountability framework, not conclusions of law, to help explain later financial and government records. Tulfo later asked how recurring undeclared account flows, spouse-held assets, and concealment relate to SALN disclosure and unexplained wealth.

Sen. Imee Marcos asked whether Justice Cabotaje-Tang would identify documents or testify to facts, challenged the need for legal-expert testimony on domestic constitutional and accountability law, and questioned whether the Court had requested such assistance. Prosecution counsel said the witness would not address case facts or documents, but would provide a legal framework. Marcos also questioned the witness's asserted disinterestedness based on the subpoena address and later supplied the Arroyo case citation.

Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III supported hearing the legal framework so the public could understand how wealth in bank accounts and its source should be assessed. He later asked about the Sandiganbayan ruling reversed in the Arroyo case and about the SALN attestation and waiver that permit scrutiny of a declarant's financial records.

Sen. Risa Hontiveros said a retired Sandiganbayan justice's discussion of general principles could assist the impeachment court and the public in understanding unexplained-wealth cases, while the defense could test the testimony and present experts. She later asked when the unexplained-wealth presumption arises and whether anti-graft law supplies a guide to removal through impeachment; Justice Cabotaje-Tang said the anti-graft law did not provide such guidance for the impeachment process.

Sen. Joel Villanueva asked what evidence distinguishes a good-faith SALN correction from deliberate concealment, including the timing and value of acquisitions, debts, supporting documents, review responses, reinvested proceeds, and disclosure of cash. He later pressed the witness and counsel on whether grouping cash under other assets complied with the applicable SALN requirements.

Sen. Erwin Tulfo asked whether large deposits quickly withdrawn, or funds claimed to have been held for another person, still warrant inquiry; Justice Cabotaje-Tang pointed to Anti-Money Laundering Act requirements for such deposits. He later asked about limitation periods and proof for unexplained wealth, whether the witness had volunteered, and whether credible testimony alone can support judgment or documents are also needed; the witness said credible testimonial evidence can suffice.

Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson asked why the constitutional business prohibition applies to the President, Vice President, and their spouses but not to governors, mayors, senators, or representatives. Justice Cabotaje-Tang said the President and Vice President's offices present a greater possibility of abuse, while Republic Act No. 6713 also contains prohibitions for other officials.

Sen. Francis Pangilinan asked whether ill-gotten wealth must be public funds; Justice Cabotaje-Tang said it need not be, citing bribery as an example. He later questioned applying Rule 129's judicial-notice framework to an impeachment court, contrasting the judiciary with a Senate court that includes nonlawyer senator-judges.

Sen. Pia S. Cayetano sought to reconcile the witness's statements that a President or Vice President could receive dividends yet must divest stock holdings. Justice Cabotaje-Tang clarified that dividends accrued before assumption of office are a vested right. Cayetano later asked whether threats, intimidation, and pressure are compatible with an impartial tribunal; the witness said they are not and said she had not encountered them in pending Sandiganbayan cases.

Sen. Joseph Victor "JV" G. Ejercito asked whether unexplained wealth is automatically illegally accumulated, whether it can be sufficiently explained, and whether acquisition before incumbency changes the analysis. Justice Cabotaje-Tang said Republic Act No. 1379 allows an official to explain a manifest disparity between lawful income and wealth, and described incumbency as one of the requisites for the presumption.

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano asked how an impartial tribunal and judicial independence bear on accountability, and whether changing conviction rules midstream would be just. Justice Cabotaje-Tang said a court's impartiality substantially affects the proper dispensation of justice. Cayetano withdrew his writ-of-amparo aside rather than seeking an answer.

The Court recognized the newly elected Presiding Officer, directed that Justice Cabotaje-Tang be seated at the witness stand, and scheduled two witnesses for the next morning.

The prosecution opened Article 2, which it described as concerning unexplained wealth, SALN violations, and non-divestment of financial and business interests.

After the witness examination and senator-judge interventions, the Chair excused Justice Tang, announced upcoming amici curiae appearances and filings, and adjourned to September 15 at 10 a.m.

Asked whether she had personal knowledge that Vice President Sara Duterte amassed unexplained wealth, Justice Tang answered: "No, sir."

Asked whether she had been promised anything for testifying, Justice Cabotaje-Tang replied: "My testimony is not for sale, sir."

The Court was to hear Atty. Karen Batu of the Office of the Ombudsman and Atty. Gerardo Del Rosario of the SEC on the next trial day.