CAGAYAN de Oro City — Cagayan de Oro residents have mixed views on the Senate impeachment trial after a BPI witness testified that Vice President Sara Duterte’s signature did not appear on documents involving a P41-million fund in a joint account with her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte.
The testimony has prompted some locals to question whether the evidence presented so far establishes Sara Duterte’s direct involvement in the transactions, while others say the impeachment process should continue so the allegations can be fully examined.
“Fishing expedition ni, walang nabingwit,” said Ronald Rufin, Radio Natin station manager based in Cagayan de Oro.
Rufin said the proceedings had yet to establish the allegations against the vice president.
“They totally disregarded the rules of law for a fishing expedition that proved nothing,” he said.
Another CDO resident, who requested anonymity, said the impeachment proceedings were a waste of public money and argued that resources being spent could instead help poor and needy Filipinos.
The resident cited the reported P25 million in daily Senate operating expenses, saying the amount could be better used for social assistance.
The P25-million figure, however, refers to reported regular Senate operating expenses and should not be treated as the additional daily cost of the impeachment trial itself.
Another CDO resident, who asked not to be named, said the impeachment should continue to let the public hear the evidence and know the truth behind the allegations against Duterte.
No Sara signature
BPI Central and Metro Manila Branches Division Head Marwin Galvez testified that documents covering the joint account did not bear Sara Duterte’s signature.
Senate Impeachment Court Presiding Officer Francis Escudero later confirmed that her signature did not appear on BPI documents covering the opening and termination of the time deposit and the purchase of manager’s checks.
The account was registered under “Rodrigo Duterte or Rodrigo Roa Duterte and Sara Z. Duterte.”
Galvez testified that a P40.65-million time deposit was opened under the account on Jan. 22, 2010. After 12 rollovers, it grew to P41,721,035.42 before the proceeds were used to purchase manager’s checks.
The manager’s check applications carried Rodrigo Duterte’s signature, while Galvez said he did not see Sara Duterte’s signature.
Defense counsel Michael Poa said Sara Duterte did not remember the account and had asked him to verify it after it surfaced during congressional proceedings.
“The point is, she had no participation in this,” Poa said.
Defense disputes money link
Defense lawyer Atty. Sheila Sison objected to the prosecution’s presentation of amounts allegedly linked to the vice president.
Sison described the amounts being flashed on the screen by the prosecution as “all BS” and said they were merely alleged to be owned by Sara Duterte.
The defense also challenged the interpretation of suspicious transaction reports cited by Anti-Money Laundering Council Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura.
Poa said the reports contained narratives submitted by banks when they flagged transactions as suspicious.
A suspicious transaction report is not, by itself, a finding that a crime was committed.
Likewise, the absence of Sara Duterte’s signature does not automatically resolve questions about ownership, beneficial interest, knowledge or control of the funds.
What does the evidence establish?
Buenaventura earlier identified two transactions totaling nearly P18.9 million involving a joint account associated with Sara and Rodrigo Duterte — a P9.79-million transaction in March 2011 and a P9.1-million withdrawal in April 2013.
The BPI testimony supports the defense position that Sara Duterte did not personally sign the transactions presented by the bank.
But whether she had beneficial ownership of the funds, knew about the transactions or exercised control over them remains for the impeachment court to determine based on the totality of the evidence.
For Cagayan de Oro residents, the testimony has produced contrasting views.
Some question whether the proceedings have produced enough evidence to justify continuing the impeachment, while others believe the process should run its course so the allegations can be examined publicly.
The larger question for the impeachment court remains: What does the evidence actually prove about Sara Duterte’s connection to the P41-million funds?
