Suzette Balucanag-Punay testifies before the Senate impeachment court during Vice President Sara Duterte's trial in November 2026. Image Source: GMA News Online.

The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte entered a new phase on November 11, when the defense presented corporate lawyer Suzette Balucanag-Punay as its fourth witness. The hearing focused on GenCorp Industries Inc., a company operating several Jollibee franchises, and its alleged financial relationship with the Vice President.

The testimony introduced a distinction between formal share ownership and financial contributions connected to a business operation. Although corporate records reportedly did not identify Duterte as a shareholder, the witness acknowledged a financial arrangement described as a loose investment. The resulting payments and their documentation became central issues during questioning.

The hearing also brought competing financial calculations into focus. The prosecution had previously presented a forensic analysis identifying a substantial alleged interest in GenCorp, while the defense sought to challenge the figures through corporate records covering 2022 to 2025. The proceedings also drew attention to GenCorp's corporate ownership structure and its links to businessman Jaime Tan Cruz, a former Philippine special envoy to China for trade and investments.

Corporate Records and the Loose Investment

Balucanag-Punay serves as in-house counsel for GenCorp Industries Inc. and Metro City Chow Foods Corporation. During direct examination, the lawyer referred to GenCorp's General Information Sheets covering 2022 through 2025. According to the testimony, Duterte's name did not appear among the company's shareholders, officers or directors during those years. The witness also stated that GenCorp had not declared dividends during that period. Consequently, no dividend payments had been distributed to Duterte through formal share ownership. However, further questioning revealed a separate financial arrangement involving the Jollibee Times Square branch, one of five Jollibee outlets operated by GenCorp.

Balucanag-Punay described the arrangement as a loose investment originating from contributions made by Duterte to Davao Bounty Times Food Corporation before the Jollibee Times Square branch began operating. According to the witness, the company recorded subsequent payments as returns of capital rather than dividends. The amount identified during the hearing reached approximately PHP2.14 million between 2022 and 2025. The payments reportedly included monthly remittances across several periods. Yet, the witness acknowledged that no written documentation established the exact amount of Duterte's original contribution.

“During direct examination, the lawyer referred to GenCorp's General Information Sheets covering 2022 through 2025.”

The distinction matters because the absence of registered shares does not, by itself, resolve questions about other forms of financial participation. At the same time, a return of capital is not automatically equivalent to a dividend, salary or business profit. Establishing the nature of the arrangement requires examination of the underlying contributions, accounting entries and payment records.

Conflicting Financial Assessments

The testimony directly challenged findings presented earlier by financial forensic expert Alexander Cabrera, who appeared for the prosecution. Cabrera's analysis attributed a 20 percent ownership interest in GenCorp to Duterte and identified approximately PHP212 million in alleged returns associated with the company. Balucanag-Punay disputed the ownership calculation by referring to GenCorp's recorded paid-up capital. According to the corporate figures cited during the hearing, the amount stood at PHP1.25 million. She argued that the figures cited in the forensic report did not correspond with the company's corporate records.

The defense argued that the forensic analysis did not accurately reflect the company's official documentation. Balucanag-Punay described the calculation as inconsistent with the corporate records, while private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan challenged the witness's characterization and questioned the basis for the criticism. The presiding officer, Senator Francis Escudero, subsequently ordered the disputed remarks removed from the official record. The exchange nevertheless highlighted the evidentiary disagreement between the two sides.

The difference between PHP2.14 million and the PHP212 million figure presented by the prosecution is substantial. However, the two amounts were introduced under different explanations. The smaller amount represented returns of capital acknowledged by the defense witness, while the larger figure formed part of the prosecution's financial assessment. Neither figure alone establishes the full extent or legal nature of the underlying transactions.

“The difference between PHP2.14 million and the PHP212 million figure presented by the prosecution is substantial.”

Further examination of bank transfers, contribution records, corporate accounting statements and the methodology behind the forensic report remains necessary to determine how the figures relate to one another.

Jaime Tan Cruz and the China-Related Business Connections

The corporate ownership structure surrounding GenCorp also brings attention to businessman Jaime Tan Cruz, whose business and political connections with the Duterte family emerged during earlier impeachment hearings. Cruz was appointed by former President Rodrigo Duterte as special envoy to China for trade and investments in October 2019. He was reportedly offered the position of president and chief executive officer of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation as well, which he declined. Previous reports have also described Cruz as a business partner of Sara Duterte, adding another dimension to the business connections examined during the impeachment proceedings.

Securities and Exchange Commission records presented during the proceedings identified JTC Group of Companies Philippines Inc. as GenCorp's largest corporate shareholder. The company's 2025 General Information Sheet showed that JTC held approximately 54.99 percent of GenCorp's shares. Cruz appeared in the corporate records as JTC's representative. However, an SEC official clarified that the documents did not establish that the initials JTC in the company's name directly stood for Jaime Tan Cruz.

A further connection emerged on September 29, when Davao City Mayor Sebastian “Baste” Duterte testified that he was a business partner of Cruz. During the same hearing, he confirmed that he, his brother Paolo Duterte and Cruz were shareholders of Chinese Gen Bee Foods Corporation, according to the company's 2026 General Information Sheet presented by the prosecution.

These disclosures provide a broader picture of the commercial network surrounding the impeachment case. They connect a former presidential envoy to China with companies involving members of the Duterte family, while JTC holds a controlling stake in GenCorp. The company name Chinese Gen Bee Foods also forms part of the corporate record, but its name alone does not establish Chinese ownership or investment.

“These disclosures provide a broader picture of the commercial network surrounding the impeachment case.”

The distinction is important. Cruz's former diplomatic appointment establishes an official connection with China under the previous administration, while the corporate records establish business relationships with Duterte family members. The information presented so far does not independently demonstrate participation by Chinese state-owned enterprises, Chinese government financing or Chinese investors in GenCorp. Those questions would require separate evidence identifying the companies' beneficial owners, funding sources and business partners.

What the Testimony Establishes and What Remains Unclear

The November 11 hearing did not settle the question of Duterte's financial relationship with GenCorp. Instead, the testimony established several points requiring further examination. Corporate records reportedly showed no registered shareholding, while the witness acknowledged a separate investment arrangement and payments recorded as returns of capital. The lack of written documentation identifying the original contribution presents an important limitation. Without supporting records, the precise amount invested, the terms of the arrangement and the accounting basis for subsequent payments remain difficult to establish through the testimony alone.

“The lack of written documentation identifying the original contribution presents an important limitation.”

The distinction also matters when examining Metro City Chow Foods Corporation, the second company represented by Balucanag-Punay. The defense acknowledged that Duterte appeared in the company's records as a shareholder, director, and member of its Compensation Committee, while maintaining that the Vice President did not perform the functions associated with those positions.

The prosecution and defense, therefore, face different evidentiary questions. The prosecution must substantiate the financial calculations and explain how the alleged interest was identified. The defense must support its alternative account with reliable corporate and financial documentation, particularly concerning the acknowledged contributions and subsequent payments.

The proceedings form part of Article II of the impeachment complaint, which concerns allegations of unexplained wealth, non-disclosure of assets and failure to divest from business interests while in public office. The Senate impeachment court must assess the evidence presented by both sides before reaching conclusions.

The case also carries a broader relevance for Sulu, where financial transparency has become an important part of local governance. In July 2026, the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Region IX conducted a compliance clinic to help local government units in the province meet the requirements of the Full Disclosure Policy. The initiative focused on improving the timely publication of financial and administrative documents, allowing residents to examine how public resources are managed.

The same accountability principles apply to the management of public funds at both national and local levels. As Sulu continues to navigate its administrative transition, transparent budgeting, proper financial documentation and effective oversight remain essential to maintaining public confidence. The impeachment proceedings highlight a principle relevant to every Filipino community: public officials must be able to account for their financial interests and responsibilities. For Sulu residents, this standard is particularly important when government funding and the continuity of essential services remain central concerns.

REFERENCES

GMA News Online. (2026, November 11). Defense witness says VP Sara has zero stocks in GenCorp firm. GMA News Online. https://www.gmanetwork.com

GMA News Online. (2026, November 11). Sara Duterte had 'loose investment' in GenCorp, received P2.14M — witness. GMA News Online.

https://www.gmanetwork.com

GMA News Online. (2026, November 11). Impeachment court removes 'absurd' comments from the record. GMA News Online. https://www.gmanetwork.com

DZRH. (2026, November 11). Duterte defense presents GenCorp counsel as fourth witness in impeachment trial. DZRH. https://www.dzrh.com.ph

KnowSulu. (2026, November 3). Sara Duterte’s Financial Records: A New Test for Philippine Accountability. KnowSulu. https://know-sulu.ph

DILG Region IX. (2026, July 5). DILG Region IX conducts FDP compliance clinic for Sulu LGUs. DILG Region IX. https://region9.dilg.gov.ph

DILG Region IX. (2026, February 19). DILG Region IX conducts technical session on PDMU monitoring platforms in the Province of Sulu. DILG Region IX. https://region9.dilg.gov.ph

Politiko. (2026, September 22). Jamie Cruz’s Duterte ties traced in trial: Sara’s business partner, Rody’s special envoy to China. Politiko. https://politiko.com.ph

SunStar. (2026, September 29). Baste Duterte confirms business ties with former special envoy to China Jaime T. Cruz. Sunstar. https://www.sunstar.com.ph