The hearing opened with the defense's cross-examination of Securities and Exchange Commission official Gerardo Fernando del Rosario. Senators then questioned him about corporate income, shareholdings and the business interests declared in Vice President Sara Duterte's statements of assets, liabilities and net worth.
In the afternoon, PhilGEPS official Rendell Sopeña presented records of 49 government contract awards to Gencorp Industries Inc., with a combined value of ₱35,878,188.
The questions covered possible sources of Duterte's wealth, her reported company positions, and the prosecution's allegation that she retained business and financial interests while serving as vice president.
Opening of the session
The court established a quorum of 17 senator-judges and approved the previous session's journal without objection.
Del Rosario, director of the SEC's Company Registration and Monitoring Department, returned under his previous oath. Defense counsel Justin Gular began his cross-examination.
1. How the SEC summaries were prepared
The defense examined the preparation of the SEC summaries used by the prosecution.
Del Rosario said his office worked from a list of 16 corporations supplied by the House. The list was not independently drawn up by his office from Duterte's SALNs. He initially did not have access to those declarations.
The request was dated September 10, received on September 11, and completed on September 14. A five-person team worked through the weekend. The questioning referred to underlying records exceeding 3,000 pages.
Gular questioned the summaries' lack of signatures and dates, the documents used to prepare them, and the order in which the companies appeared.
The defense also raised the absence of the September 10 request letter from its copies, separating that letter from the later transmittal.
Prosecutor Erwin Matib objected that the defense was relying on the transmittal rather than the request letter when questioning the inclusion of incorporation records. The chair overruled the objection and allowed the witness to answer.
2. Dividends and the limits of the income records
The defense questioned whether the absence of declared dividends could establish that the companies had provided no income to Duterte.
The discussion covered the board's authority to declare dividends from unrestricted retained earnings, restrictions on retaining surplus profits, and exceptions involving approved expansion plans, loan conditions and other needs.
The hearing also separated two situations: records showing no declared dividends, and a lack of information because financial statements were unavailable.
Del Rosario could not establish every possible source of personal income from the corporate filings before him.
Other possible sources were raised during questioning, including salary, professional income, inheritance and property transactions. The witness did not establish amounts received from those sources.
The defense also established that the sales, revenues and losses in the financial statements were those of the companies. They could not automatically be treated as Duterte's personal income or losses.
3. Shareholding, business participation and personal knowledge
Gular questioned the difference between declaring a business interest and taking part in a company's operations.
Del Rosario said he lacked personal knowledge of Duterte attending meetings, making company decisions or managing the daily operations of the corporations discussed. His testimony was based on the records available to his department.
The defense asked about the preparation of corporate filings. It established that Duterte was not identified as the corporate secretary who swore to the general information sheets being examined.
Questions about possible nominee or trust arrangements followed. No actual agreement establishing such an arrangement was produced in that exchange.
The summaries did not include beneficial-ownership declarations, which can identify the people behind corporate shareholders. Del Rosario said his department did not handle those forms.
Gular also questioned Del Rosario about conflict of interest under Republic Act 6713. Matib objected that the questioning was outside the direct examination. The chair allowed it, noting that the witness had already given legal interpretations. Del Rosario's answers remained limited by the documents available to him and his lack of personal knowledge of Duterte's activities.
4. The prosecution returned to the board records
On redirect examination, Matib returned to the responsibilities of corporate directors and the approval of financial statements.
The filings discussed listed Duterte as a director and shareholder of Metro City Chow Foods Corporation from 2018 to 2025.
A statement of management responsibility described the board's role in overseeing financial reporting. Notes to the company's financial statements said its board approved and authorized the 2024 and 2023 statements on March 31, 2025.
Matib also had the witness read the provision on the board's powers to conduct the corporation's business and control its property.
On recross-examination, Gular returned to the witness's lack of personal knowledge of Duterte's participation. The questioning also covered the fact that a board can act through a majority.
The prosecution relied on her reported position and the board's responsibilities. The defense questioned what the witness could establish about her own actions.
5. Questions from the senator-judges
Erwin Tulfo: identities appearing across companies
Erwin Tulfo asked about Jaime T. Cruz, whose name appeared in the corporate discussion, and whether he was the same person appointed as special envoy to China for trade and investment under former President Rodrigo Duterte.
Matib confirmed the identity. When asked about Cruz declining an offered PhilHealth chairmanship, Matib gave a qualified answer that he believed this was so.
Raffy Tulfo: ownership and continued involvement
Raffy Tulfo questioned whether the size of a shareholding changes the fact that a person retains ownership. He connected his questions to the constitutional prohibition on business participation while holding certain public offices.
In a later round, he asked about the SEC's handling of records involving public officials and evidence of actual decisions or management activity.
The witness returned to the limits of the filings available to his office.
Sherwin Gatchalian: possible sources of wealth
Gatchalian examined whether the corporate records could help narrow down possible sources of Duterte's wealth growth.
His questions covered dividend information, companies with losses, missing reports and shortened corporate terms.
Del Rosario said the dividend information did not establish whether Duterte had other income from a company. Gatchalian acknowledged that she could have other sources of income while explaining that his questions concerned the corporations.
The discussion included SGT Fortune Horse and Three Kids Trucking Services, whose corporate terms the witness said had been shortened to dates in July 2017.
Gatchalian asked whether companies whose terms had already ended could account for later increases in Duterte's net worth. Del Rosario agreed with that proposition. This was an exchange between the senator and the witness; the court did not issue a finding that every possible source of income had been ruled out.
Gatchalian also asked about companies that fail to submit required reports. Del Rosario described notices and the possibility of revoking registration for continued noncompliance.
Kiko Pangilinan: who owns the corporate shareholders?
Pangilinan examined Gencorp's corporate shareholding structure, including JTC's reported holding in the company.
He asked how the people behind corporate shareholders could be identified. Del Rosario explained that the beneficial-ownership forms were outside his department's custody.
Pangilinan sought additional JTC records. The chair took the request under advisement and said he would await action from the prosecution.
In a later round, Pangilinan compared company sales with the dividend information presented. The discussion covered the retention of earnings for expansion and the fact that failing to declare dividends is not automatically unlawful.
Risa Hontiveros: payment for shares and ownership records
Hontiveros asked what the SEC records could establish about the amounts paid for company shares.
She also returned to the gap between Duterte's SALN declarations and the corporate filings.
Her questions included the use of beneficial-ownership declarations to identify the people behind layers of corporate ownership.
The witness could explain entries in the documents available to him, but could not establish every underlying transaction from those entries alone.
Bam Aquino: an explanation from the defense
Aquino asked how Duterte's declared interest in Gencorp could be explained alongside the absence of her name from the corporate records discussed.
Gular said it was premature to require the defense's explanation while the prosecution was still presenting its evidence.
Aquino respected that position and said the defense would have its turn. He also raised the possibility of obtaining an explanation from Gencorp's corporate officers.
JV Ejercito: an interest without dividends
Ejercito asked whether a shareholder retains a financial interest even without receiving dividends. Del Rosario said a financial interest remains while the person holds shares.
Ejercito then asked whether merely retaining shares, without taking part in management or business decisions, amounts to willfully continuing to engage in business. The exchange did not result in a court ruling on that question.
Francis Escudero: the SALN and SEC records
Presiding officer Francis Escudero examined the business entries in Duterte's SALNs and questioned the company names appearing in them.
The discussion returned to Gencorp and the earlier business names stated in the declarations.
Duterte's SALN declared a Gencorp stockholding. Del Rosario said the corporate filings he discussed did not list her as a shareholder.
Possible explanations were discussed, but the hearing did not resolve the mismatch.
6. The SEC witness was excused
Before Del Rosario was excused, the parties addressed the marking of the SEC summaries and related documents.
The court then took its lunch recess.
7. PhilGEPS presented the government-award records
In the afternoon, Sopeña, chief of the PhilGEPS Electronic Government Procurement Operations Division, took his oath.
Prosecutor Gerville Luistro conducted the direct examination. Roberto Batungbacal appeared for the defense.
Sopeña explained the PhilGEPS system, the uploading of procurement documents by government agencies, and how the records are searched and extracted.
He said his office's search under Gencorp produced 49 award records. He presented 231 documents, ultimately specifying a total of 484 pages, together with electronic copies.
8. Defense objections and time to inspect the documents
The defense raised objections concerning the presentation of new documents and its need to inspect them before cross-examination.
Luistro referred to the prosecution's earlier reservation to present the records. The chair confirmed the reservation and allowed the presentation to proceed, while giving the defense time to review the material.
The defense also questioned an unsigned and undated summary and sought printed copies. The chair directed that copies be furnished and addressed the later marking of the documents.
When the witness referred to a document at the stand, the chair instructed him to seek permission before doing so.
9. Questions about signatures, branch details and the summaries
As Luistro went through procurement documents, the defense challenged a question asking the witness to identify signatures. The question was rephrased, and he read the contracting parties' names from the document.
The chair also directed the prosecution to move past menu details and concentrate on the contract evidence.
During questions about a branch location, Luistro referred to Google Maps. The defense objected to counsel supplying facts. The chair struck her statement.
The hearing clarified that the raw database extract and the summary spreadsheet were different items. Sopeña said he had prepared summary tabs to organize the extracted information.
Later, the defense questioned the existence of prepared graphs when the prosecution had said it was seeing the documents for the first time.
Luistro said volunteer lawyers had worked on them while the examination continued. The chair said this was a subject for cross-examination.
10. The 49 awards and their stated values
Sopeña gave the following breakdown:
| Procuring agency | Award records | Total value |
|---|---|---|
| Davao City government | 15 | ₱34,216,900 |
| PhilHealth Regional Office XI | 33 | ₱1,331,288 |
| OWWA Regional Welfare Office XI | 1 | ₱330,000 |
| Total | 49 | ₱35,878,188 |
Escudero identified the period covered as July 21, 2022 to June 23, 2026. The defense pointed out that Duterte was no longer Davao City mayor during that period.
Luistro linked the records to the allegation under Article II that Duterte had not divested her business and financial interests. She relied on Duterte's SALN declaration of a Gencorp shareholding and later cited the constitutional prohibition on a vice president being financially interested, directly or indirectly, in government contracts.
The defense disputed the relevance of the records and the prosecution's argument. The chair allowed Luistro to finish presenting them.
The amounts stated were the values of the awards to Gencorp. They were not presented as a calculation of money personally paid to Duterte.
11. The request for judicial notice
Luistro asked the court to take judicial notice of Duterte's SALN entries, constitutional provisions and procurement-law provisions. She also sought recognition of Sebastian Duterte's role as Davao City's local chief executive and head of the procuring entity.
The chair took judicial notice of the laws cited, but expressly excluded one party's interpretation, meaning or application of those laws from that ruling.
Escudero also returned to both parts of the ownership question: Duterte's declaration of a Gencorp interest and the SEC testimony about her absence from the corporate filings discussed.
He said the senator-judges would evaluate and weigh the testimony. He left the requested proof concerning Sebastian Duterte's relationship to the respondent for his later appearance.
12. Next proceedings
Sopeña's direct examination ended. His cross-examination, if any, was set for Monday, September 28.
The trial was suspended until September 23 at 10 a.m. for oral arguments on Erwin Tulfo's challenge concerning the number of votes required for conviction.
Each side was allotted 15 minutes, followed by questions from the senator-judges. A vote on the challenge was planned after the arguments.
Where the hearing left the case
The day added government-award records and further examination of corporate filings, dividend information and Duterte's declared business interests.
The prosecution connected the records to its allegations concerning business participation and financial interests during her vice presidency. The defense challenged the evidence, its relevance and what the witnesses could establish from it.
The Gencorp ownership mismatch remained unresolved in the day's proceedings. Sopeña had not yet undergone cross-examination. The court left the senator-judges to weigh the testimony and set the next proceedings.