by Diego Morra
Criminal charges may be awaiting Gencorp Industries Inc. counsel Atty. Suzette Balucanag-Punay as she insisted that Sara Zimmerman Duterte Carpio does not own a single share of stock in the company but admitted that Sara received P2,142,369.14 as “return of capital” from the company from 2022 to 2025, broken down as follows: P337,500 in 2022; P555,750 in 2023; P612,419.14 in 2024, and; P636,700 in 2025. Under the law, Sara cannot engage in business or earn additional compensation from the government while occupying the vice presidency.
Twisting herself in knots, Punay said the payments were for the return of capital to Sara, who invested in one company which failed to secure a Jollibee franchise. Her investment later jumped to Gencorp., whose owner is closely linked with the Dutertes. Punay claimed that through all those years, Punay claimed that Sara was not a stockholder, officer or director of Gencorp., a company controlled by a businessman who was named by named by detained ex-president Rodrigo Duterte as his envoy to China to attract investments.
Punay’s statement contradicts Sara’s admission in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) that she was a stockholder and director of the company. She executed her SALNs under oath. Yet, Punay insisted that Sara’s name did not appear in the company’s General Information Sheets (GIS) from 2022 to 2025. She also said Gencorp. did not declare dividends during the same period, raising another question why Gencorp. paid Sara P2.1-million during the same period for “return of capital.” However, Sara’s SALNs showed her annual “return of capital” might even be higher than the dividends for Gencorp. stockholders who belong to one Chinese-Filipino family. The ties that bind them and Sara are worth investigating. Punay’s pained defense of Sara as not being a beneficial owner of the company will not stand on the basis of her SALN disclosure. Her absence during stockholders’ meetings, board meetings, management or decision-making is of no consequence to the impeachment trial. Her unilateral declaration that she was a Gencorp. stockholder in her SALN “doesn’t make her one.” Or is this the same as saying standing in a garage doesn’t make a woman a car.
Kapunan asked why Punay did not bring Duterte’s declaration of GenCorp ownership in her SALNs to the company’s attention. She said it was not her duty to examine other people’s SALNs and adjust GenCorp’s corporate records based on their declarations. “I believe that my function as counsel of GenCorp, Your Honor, does not involve looking at other people’s SALNs and adjusting our records just because somebody declared that he is a stockholder of our corporation,” she said. Kapunan then asked why Sara had declared herself a GenCorp stockholder if she had no shares in the company. Again, Punay said she is not Sara’s keeper.
From 2022 to 2025, Punay disclosed, Gencorp. did not declare dividends but gladly paid huge amounts to Sara. Moreover, Sara did not participate in the management of the corporation, she added, which is irrelevant to the issue of her failure to divest herself of any business interest when she became vice president in 2022. Supposed to be an eagle-eyed counsel, Punay could not say with certainty how a corporation with a paid-up capital of only P1.25-million managed to wangle five Jollibee franchises since each franchise is estimated to cost a minimum of P35-million. She claimed she could not find any record of Sara’s investments in Gencorp. The impeachment court might as well summon such records to check on the veracity of her assertion. GenCorp operates five Jollibee branches in Davao City: Bolton, Matina Crossing, G-Mall, Times Square and Abreeza.
Asked if Duterte had shareholdings or other interests in previous Jollibee franchisees or in the specific branches, Punay answered “no.” She wasn’t aware that another Jollibee branch in Quezon City was also operated by Gencorp. Prosecution counsel Lorna Kapunan pounced on Duterte’s investment, noting that Sara’s president’s original capital contribution to Davao Bounty was only P46,875 but Gencorp.’s return on her “loose investment” ran into millions in just four years. An evaluation of the original Gencorp. records might reveal the falsity of Punay’s claims or challenge the reliability of the defense’s argument that the investment was above board and did not violate the constitutional ban on vice presidents engaging in business while in office.
Punay also admitted she could not verify the amount of Duterte’s original investment in the Jollibee Times Square branch. Worse, she admitted that she doesn’t know why her own company was issuing the payments even though the investment was supposedly made through Davao Bounty, a separate company. As counsel, she could have raised questions about the remittances to Sara but she did not. Earlier, she was asked by the defense if she were aware of any influence that Sara had in making GenCorp win 19 contracts with the Davao City government under Mayor Sebastian Duterte. She said Sara did not influence anyone at City Hall, which she headed previously. The defense, in a bid to add more brownie points for Sara, asked if the vice president got anything from the 19 contracts. The usual answer: “Nothing.”
Analyzing the tack of the defense, it appears that they believe blanket denial will save the day for them. Two of the previous defense witness availed themselves of the “I don’t know” excuse but they got bombed right at the dock. This case is not only about hidden wealth and crassness of Sara. It is also about the culture of impunity that has crept into the innards of the Duterte political dynasty; it is also about the banality of evil and Sara’s solipsism and belief that her demonstrated inability to express herself is what voters like. She has little respect for voters who may have realized that one sting is enough. It happened in 2016. It won’t happen again in 2028.#
