Senators grill Davao accountant on VP firms

Manila – As the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte entered its 41st day, the Senate’s panel of judge‑senators turned a sharp focus on the credibility of a defense witness whose professional ties raised questions of conflict of interest. The witness, Davao City accountant Vingelin Bajan, was grilled over her simultaneous roles as a city hall employee and a partner in an accounting firm that audited companies linked to the vice president. The exchange, marked by heated rebukes and emotional moments, highlighted how the trial has become a crucible for examining not only alleged hidden wealth but also the integrity of those called to testify.

Background on the salary‑differential testimony

During the hearing, Bajan testified that Vice President Duterte received a “salary differential” of ₱64,194.72 from the increase in her mayoral salary for 2020 and 2021. The amount, according to Bajan, was paid retroactively in 2023, after Duterte had already assumed the vice‑presidency. This figure was presented by the defense to suggest that the alleged excess earnings were merely a delayed adjustment rather than undisclosed enrichment.

The prosecution, however, seized on the context of Bajan’s testimony, probing whether her dual employment compromised her objectivity. Their line of questioning aimed to show that Bajan’s financial ties to firms under scrutiny could color her narrative, thereby casting doubt on the legitimacy of the salary‑differential claim.

Dual employment and the conflict‑of‑interest allegation

Senator‑judges quickly uncovered that Bajan was a partner at the accounting firm Ampil, Elises, Ciudadano, and Co. CPAs while serving as a regular employee of the Davao City Accounting Office. She had joined the city accounting office in 2004 and later became a partner at the firm, a role she retained until 2015. Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian flagged this overlap, noting that the firm acted as an external auditor for several companies tied to Duterte, including GenCorp Industries Inc., Metro City Chow Foods Corp., Town Times Square B, City Hall King Chow Foods Corp., and Great Jolly Times Food Corp.

Senator Francis Pangilinan highlighted that Bajan’s appointment as Davao city accountant in 2017 came directly from the vice president when she was still mayor. The timing raised eyebrows about patronage and the potential for compromised oversight, especially given the firm’s auditing relationship with Duterte‑linked enterprises.

Senate’s probing of Bajan’s testimony

The questioning quickly turned confrontational. Senate presiding officer Francis Escudero warned Bajan that his patience was wearing thin, emphasizing that a professional accustomed to signing partnership documents should not feign ignorance of her own signature. Senator Raffy Tulfo warned that continued evasion could lead to a contempt citation, echoing earlier admonitions to other witnesses who appeared to mock the proceedings.

Senator Bam Aquino appealed to Bajan’s sense of duty, urging her to answer directly while cautioning that evasiveness placed her in “dangerous territory.” Senator Risa Hontiveros expressed disbelief that Bajan could forget affixing her signature to the partnership papers, underscoring the seriousness with which the Senate viewed the alleged conflict.

Emotional moments and personal disclosures

Amid the stern questioning, Bajan’s demeanor shifted. When Senator Joel Villanueva asked her to assure him of her good intentions as a public servant despite moonlighting, she became emotional, recounting that she had once considered a religious vocation before choosing public service. She described herself as a “hardworking city hall employee” who earned her keep through dedication.

Senator Lito Lapid, noting her visible distress, expressed sympathy, asking whether she felt used as a defense tool. Bajan denied being a pawn, insisting her testimony was truthful. Meanwhile, Senator Imee Marcos intervened on behalf of the defense, arguing that the line of questioning veered into “collateral issues” unrelated to the salary‑differential matter.

Prosecution’s parallel focus on property discrepancies

While the Senate examined Bajan’s credibility, the prosecution pressed on separate but related allegations of concealed assets. Private prosecutor Benjamin Tolosa Jr. challenged the defense’s claim that a property in Matina Crossing, Davao City, listed in Vice President Duterte’s 2025 Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN), had been properly declared. He noted that the property was actually registered under the name of Duterte’s husband, Manases Carpio, and that the deed of absolute sale indicated a selling price of ₱3.4 million—lower than the ₱4 million acquisition cost cited in the SALN.

Tolosa also highlighted a second property in Barangay San Isidro, Kaputian, Island Garden City of Samal, pointing out a mismatch between the location listed in the SALN (Barangay Matanos) and the actual title (Barangay San Isidro). He underscored that the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 142‑2019013134 carried an assessed value of ₱346,960 and a market value of ₱4.9 million, suggesting that the defense’s reliance on matching values did not resolve the location discrepancy.

Implications for the impeachment trial and ordinary Filipinos

The intense scrutiny of Bajan’s dual roles and the property inconsistencies underscores a broader narrative: the impeachment trial is not merely a political showdown but a test of accountability mechanisms that affect everyday Filipinos. If public officials can hold parallel private positions that intersect with entities under investigation, the risk of compromised oversight grows, eroding trust in institutions from the barangay level up to the national Senate.

For the average Filipino—whether a sari‑sari store owner in a provincial town or an OFW sending remittances home—the outcome of this trial will signal whether the rule of law can curb the concentration of wealth and power. The Senate’s willingness to cite contempt for evasive witnesses reflects a resolve to enforce transparency, yet the emotional pleas of witnesses like Bajan remind us that many public servants navigate complex personal and professional pressures.

Looking ahead: what the next days may hold

As the impeachment trial proceeds, the Senate’s panel of judge‑senators is likely to continue probing the credibility of defense witnesses, especially those with potential conflicts of interest. The prosecution’s focus on property discrepancies suggests that further forensic examination of the vice president’s SALN and related land titles will remain a central strategy.

For citizens watching from their barangays, the trial offers a moment of bayanihan—collective vigilance—to demand that public officials be held to the same standards of accountability they expect of their own local leaders. Whether the Senate will ultimately issue contempt citations, compel further disclosures, or find that the alleged hidden wealth is substantiated, the process itself reinforces the democratic principle that no one is above the law.

This article was produced with AI-assisted research and editorial support. Reporting is based on the source material cited below. Sources: Philstar.com; Global1.News (11 November 2026).

By Bella Reyes, Staff Writer