TESTIFYING as a hostile witness before the Senate impeachment court on Tuesday, Davao City Mayor Sebastian “Baste” Duterte affirmed his legal accountability for city procurement contracts awarded to GenCorp Industries, Inc., a company in which his sister, Vice President Sara Duterte-Carpio, declared a financial stake.
Despite delegating signing authority to Assistant City Administrator Tristan Dwight Domingo, Mayor Duterte acknowledged under cross-examination by prosecution lawyer Theodore Te that delegating authority does not absolve him of his responsibility as Davao City’s Head of Procuring Entity (HOPE).
The prosecution is investigating potential conflicts of interest regarding 19 city contracts awarded to GenCorp, a firm Vice President Duterte disclosed in her 2024 and 2025 Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN).
During his testimony, Mayor Duterte claimed he only learned of GenCorp after its mention in the impeachment proceedings, noting he does not personally review every municipal contract.
When pressed by Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo on whether he would investigate potential conflicts of interest, the mayor replied that unless his sister’s name explicitly appeared on the contract face, “then, there’s nothing.”
The hearing also highlighted discrepancies between municipal records and state procurement data.
While PhilGEPS records presented by division chief Rendell Sopeña listed 15 transactions—11 conducted via small-value procurement without competitive bidding—subpoenaed documents submitted by Mayor Duterte revealed 19 total contracts.
The trial recessed briefly to allow both sides to examine roughly 100 pages of additional municipal records.
Reacting to the testimony, Deputy Speaker Francisco Paolo Ortega V criticized the mayor’s stance, arguing that command responsibility prevents local executives from claiming ignorance over administration corruption issues.
In a separate ruling on Tuesday, Senate President and Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero sustained Vice President Duterte’s objection to a prosecution request requiring her to admit or deny facts across over 100 financial records.
Escudero stated that compelling responses would violate her constitutional right against self-incrimination, emphasizing that discovery procedures cannot substitute for the prosecution’s burden of proof.