BASTE DUTERTE: HOW MUCH CAN A MAYOR AFFORD NOT TO KNOW?

Months ago, somebody told me something about Sebastian “Baste” Duterte that I chose not to write about.

According to this person, there was an occasion when a visitor was supposed to meet the mayor of Davao City. While they were looking for him, somebody supposedly told them: “Huwag niyo na pong hanapin ’yan at madalas ’yan wala.”

I did not put much stock in it.

It was second-hand information. I did not hear the conversation myself, and I had no attendance records, official schedules, travel records or other documents that could prove Baste Duterte was frequently absent from his duties.

So I left it alone.

Then I watched Baste Duterte testify before the Senate impeachment court on September 29.

His testimony did not prove he was frequently absent from City Hall. It raised a different question.

How much can a mayor afford not to know about the government he leads?

THE RECORDS DO NOT AGREE

Before getting to Baste, there is already a problem in the records involving GenCorp Industries Inc.

Sara Duterte’s 2024 and 2025 SALNs identified GenCorp as a business interest. Her 2024 SALN described her as a stockholder, said the interest was acquired in 2013, and described GenCorp as formerly Times Square B Food Corp. and Great Jolly Times Food Corp.

Then the SEC witness testified that the corporate records he examined did not show Sara Duterte as a direct GenCorp incorporator or stockholder. He also testified that the SEC records treated GenCorp, Times Square B Food and Great Jolly Times Food as separate corporations, not merely different names of one corporation.

That discrepancy remains unresolved.

The SEC witness discussed possible explanations, such as an indirect interest or a trust arrangement, but he did not testify that either arrangement actually existed. He also said the records his department reviewed did not include beneficial ownership declarations.

So I am not going to claim the records prove hidden ownership.

But I am also not going to pretend the records agree.

Sara Duterte’s sworn SALN describes one thing. The SEC corporate records presented to the impeachment court show another.

THE DAVAO CITY CONTRACTS

PhilGEPS records presented before the impeachment court showed 15 Davao City contracts with GenCorp worth about P34.216 million. Four went through public bidding and 11 through negotiated small-value procurement.

Baste Duterte gave different figures. He said Davao City had 19 GenCorp transactions worth more than P33.2 million, with four through competitive public bidding and 15 through small-value procurement.

PhilGEPS says 15 contracts worth about P34.216 million.

Davao City says 19 transactions worth about P33.2 million.

That difference still needs an explanation.

The PhilGEPS records covered Davao City awards from July 2022 through June 2026. Baste became mayor on July 1, 2022. After the 2025 elections he became vice mayor, but the DILG directed him to perform the duties of acting mayor because Rodrigo Duterte could not assume the office. Baste formally took his oath as mayor again on January 23, 2026 under the law on succession.

So throughout the period covered by the Davao City GenCorp awards presented in the hearing, Baste was exercising mayoral powers.

WHAT BASTE ACTUALLY KNEW

There is a difference between saying Baste knew nothing about GenCorp and saying he did not know about Sara’s declared interest in GenCorp.

During his testimony, Baste acknowledged that when GenCorp contracts reached his office, he became aware of them. His position was that he did not know Sara Duterte had declared an interest in the company.

Baste said neither her name nor the Duterte surname appeared in the corporate documents GenCorp submitted to the city. He said he did not discuss his sister’s businesses with her and had not personally examined GenCorp’s corporate records.

He also said he asked Assistant City Administrator Tristan Dwight Domingo whether GenCorp had complied with the process. According to Baste, he was told that the company qualified and that proper procedures had been followed.

Then Baste said something that makes his lack of knowledge relevant.

He said that if he had known his sister had an interest in GenCorp, he would not have allowed the city to award contracts to the company.

If this information was significant enough to change his decision, how did the city government under his supervision fail to bring it to him?

That is not an accusation of corruption.

It is a question about executive supervision.

DELEGATION AND SUPERVISION

Philippine law recognizes that senior government officials cannot personally recheck every document prepared by their subordinates.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that reality in Arias v. Sandiganbayan. Heads of offices may reasonably rely on people assigned to process and review government transactions.

Baste also formally delegated procurement and signing functions to city officials. A government as large as Davao City cannot function without delegation.

But later Supreme Court decisions have also rejected the idea that Arias automatically protects an official whenever somebody below him handled the work. Circumstances can arise that call for closer inquiry, especially when the official’s own position includes review and supervision.

I do not expect Baste Duterte to perform the BAC’s work.

The question is whether he knew enough about his own administration to recognize when something called for his attention.

WHAT THE LAW EXPECTS FROM A MAYOR

The Constitution gives us the starting point:

“Public office is a public trust.”

Article XI, Section 1 says public officers must remain accountable to the people and serve with responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.

The Local Government Code gives the mayor an executive job.

Section 455 identifies the city mayor as the chief executive and gives the office general supervision and control over city programs, projects, services and activities.

The mayor represents the city in business transactions, has authority to examine city books and records, and is responsible for seeing that executive officials and employees perform their functions.

That is the standard I am using here.

Not whether Baste personally checked every quotation or signed every piece of paper.

Whether he exercised the supervision attached to the office.

THE PROCUREMENT STRUCTURE STILL PUTS THE MAYOR AT THE TOP

The GenCorp transactions span several years, so the procurement rules have to be matched to the date of each transaction.

Earlier transactions fell under Republic Act No. 9184 and its implementing rules. Republic Act No. 12009, the New Government Procurement Act, came later and contains transition provisions for procurement activities begun under the previous system.

Under RA 9184, the local chief executive was already the Head of the Procuring Entity, or HoPE, for an LGU.

The BAC had its own legal functions, and authorized officials could exercise delegated powers.

But Baste himself confirmed during his testimony that even when Domingo signed contracts under delegated authority, Baste remained the final accountable officer as HoPE.

The work can be delegated.

Accountability at the top does not disappear with the signature.

THE FIVE-YEAR REQUIREMENT

There was another exchange during Baste’s testimony that deserves attention.

Baste had described GenCorp as having been rigorously evaluated.

During questioning, he was confronted with a 2024 Davao City procurement requirement stating that bidders had to have operated in the relevant line of business for at least five years.

GenCorp was registered in 2020.

Asked whether he personally knew that GenCorp satisfied that requirement, Baste said he did not know and that city records could be checked. He later said compliance was presumed and that the BAC may have modified the rule for that procurement.

If the requirement was lawfully modified, the procurement file should show what changed and the basis for doing so.

I am not treating the five-year provision as proof of an illegal award. The complete procurement file is needed before reaching that conclusion.

But Baste’s own description of GenCorp as rigorously evaluated creates a fair question.

What did that evaluation consist of, who performed it, and what did the records show about the five-year requirement?

THE P8.4-MILLION FOOD CONTRACT

One transaction discussed during the hearing involved a P8.4-million contract for up to 60,000 servings of fried chicken, rice and bottled water requested by the City Mayor’s Office.

GenCorp was the single calculated responsive bidder.

That fact alone does not prove an illegal procurement. Philippine procurement rules allow an award to a single responsive bidder when prescribed conditions are met.

The useful questions are in the procurement file: what qualifications were imposed, what GenCorp submitted, what corporate information was disclosed, what the BAC verified, and who approved the transaction.

THE FAMILY CONNECTION

RA 9184 contained disclosure rules involving relationships between bidders and the HoPE.

For competitive bidding, the law called for a sworn statement concerning whether the bidder, or an officer of a corporate bidder, was related to the HoPE within the third civil degree.

Sara Duterte is Baste Duterte’s sister.

But that does not allow me to declare GenCorp automatically disqualified from every city transaction.

We first have to know Sara’s actual legal relationship to GenCorp at the time of each procurement, which procurement method was used, and which rules applied.

Again, we return to the same discrepancy.

Sara’s SALN identifies her as a stockholder.

The SEC records presented in the impeachment trial did not directly list her as one.

That has to be resolved before reaching a legal conclusion.

THE JAIME TAN CRUZ CONNECTION

The hearing also produced another connection.

Baste confirmed that Jaime Tan Cruz is his business partner in Chinese Gen Bee Foods Corp. The 2026 General Information Sheet presented in court listed Baste, Paolo Duterte and Cruz as shareholders.

Cruz also appears in the GenCorp ownership trail presented during the trial. JTC Group of Companies Philippines Inc. held a controlling stake in GenCorp, and SEC records presented in court showed Cruz representing JTC Group in GenCorp.

Baste said he did not know Cruz was connected to GenCorp either.

Being business partners in one company does not prove that Baste knew what Cruz was doing in another company.

But the connection makes the corporate records even more relevant.

WHAT DID GENCORP DISCLOSE TO DAVAO CITY?

For me, this is one of the biggest unanswered questions.

Baste’s defense partly relies on the absence of Sara Duterte’s name from GenCorp’s corporate papers submitted to the city.

Then I want to see those papers.

What did GenCorp submit when it sought Davao City contracts?

What ownership and officer information appeared in those documents?

What sworn declarations accompanied the bids or quotations?

What did the BAC and city procurement officers see when they evaluated the company?

If those records gave Davao City no reasonable indication of Sara Duterte’s declared interest, that supports Baste’s explanation.

If they contained information that should have triggered additional questions, that points somewhere else.

THE GOVERNMENT’S OWN STANDARD FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Republic Act No. 6713 says public officials must place public interest above personal interest and use government powers and resources efficiently, effectively, honestly and economically. It also expects professionalism, competence and skill in the performance of official duties.

The Seal of Good Local Governance Act also treats transparency and accountability in the use of public funds as basic indicators of LGU performance.

DILG’s Local Government Academy gives incoming city mayors practical responsibilities that include organizing executive offices, reviewing the fiscal condition of the LGU, working with barangays, reviewing the Annual Investment Program and preparing the executive budget.

The mayor is not a ceremonial figure.

It is an executive office with financial, administrative and supervisory responsibilities.

BASTE SET HIS OWN STANDARD

When Baste took his oath as incoming mayor in June 2022, he told Dabawenyos:

“Inefficiency in local government will not be tolerated.”

Good.

Then that standard should apply here.

If GenCorp met the qualifications imposed by Davao City, the records should show it.

If city officials had no reasonable way to know about Sara Duterte’s declared interest, the documentary trail should support that explanation.

If the five-year requirement was lawfully modified, the procurement file should show how and why.

Public accountability does not ask us to presume guilt.

It also does not ask us to stop asking questions because somebody else handled the paperwork.

THE DUTERTE NAME DOES NOT ANSWER FOR BASTE

Rodrigo Duterte’s performance as mayor does not answer whether Sebastian Duterte performed his own duties well. Sara Duterte’s record does not answer it either.

Baste holds his own office and exercises his own powers.

His performance has to be assessed from his own decisions, supervision, administration and results.

The same standard should apply to every elected official, regardless of surname.

BACK TO THE STORY I DID NOT USE

So I go back to what somebody told me months ago:

“Huwag niyo na pong hanapin ’yan at madalas ’yan wala.”

I still cannot verify it, so I still will not present it as fact.

Baste may have been outside City Hall doing official work. The account may have been exaggerated. There may be another explanation entirely.

But after his testimony, whether he was physically inside City Hall has become the less interesting question.

The better question is whether he was sufficiently informed about the administration he was leading.

We know GenCorp contracts reached his office.

We know he says he did not know Sara had declared an interest in GenCorp.

We know he says that knowledge would have changed his decision.

We know he acknowledged that although procurement functions and signing authority were delegated, accountability stopped with him.

None of those facts proves corruption.

They do give the public a legitimate basis to ask whether Baste’s lack of knowledge reflected reasonable delegation, weak internal controls, poor communication inside the city government, or inadequate executive supervision.

“I did not know” is an answer.

For the chief executive of a city, it can also lead to the next question:

Mayor, why didn’t you know?