The investigation into public officials suspected of having unexplained wealth may look into the assets under the name of their spouses, children, and even other people, according to retired Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang.
Testifying in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, Cabotaje-Tang said this is allowed as per the Supreme Court ruling in Republic v Rabusa and Rabusa v Republic.
“This is to prevent concealment and to obviate the circumstance that a public official is able to evade investigation,” Cabotaje-Tang said.
Cabotaje-Tang was presented as a witness on laws concerning public accountability and the statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth, and not about the specific allegations of unexplained wealth against Duterte, of which she has no personal knowledge.
During her testimony, she said bank deposits in the name of the public officials’ spouses or dependents may be taken into consideration in relation to unexplained wealth allegations under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act or Republic Act 3019, even if there is another law to the contrary.
She also said the assets of other persons may be scrutinized for as long as the acquisition is traceable to a public official, based on the Supreme Court ruling in Ligot v Sandiganbayan.
One of the things checked is if these individuals are financially capable of lawfully acquiring the assets, she said.
She explained that public officials’ unexplained wealth is usually hidden through the use of dummies, nominees, or proxies. They register assets in the names of other people, she added.
Cabotaje-Tang also said the assets of an official’s spouse should be included in the SALN, unless the couple has a pre-nuptial agreement stating that they have a complete separation of property.
If this is the case, then the spouse’s property need not be in the SALN, she said.
But if there is no such agreement, then all assets of the spouse, including properties, cash, and business interests, must be in the SALN, she added.
She said government officials would be held liable for failing to declare their spouse’s assets, unless the officials can sufficiently explain that there was no intentional concealment.
Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian asked if a public official could be removed from his or her post for failing to declare their spouse’s assets, and Cabotaje-Tang answered in the affirmative, provided that it is established that there was unlawful acquisition of unexplained wealth.