By Daniel Long

There is a big difference between economic analysis and political commentary masquerading as economic analysis. Dr. JC Punongbayan’s October 14 Rappler column, “Will Sara Duterte Be Good for Business and the Economy?”, shows just how easily that distinction can become blurred. For an article supposedly examining Vice President Sara Duterte’s economic credentials, Punongbayan devotes little attention to her actual economic and administrative record.

Instead, readers encounter a familiar collection of controversies involving former President Rodrigo Duterte, allegations arising from impeachment proceedings, and repeated insinuations that the political record of the father should determine the economic prospects of the daughter. His conclusion is even more ridiculous: that another Duterte presidency would constitute a “third plague.”  

If Punongbayan genuinely wishes to evaluate Sara Duterte’s economic competence, why does his article devote little to no attention to her experience and performance governing Davao City, the largest city in the Philippines in terms of land area? During Duterte’s tenure as mayor, Davao City maintained its position as one of the Philippines’ major economic centers. The city ranked as the eighth-richest city in the country, according to the Commission on Audit (COA), was recognized as the fourth-most competitive highly urbanized city by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), and maintained a debt-free financial position. These achievements are measurable. Dismissing Sara’s economic prospects nationally without seriously examining this Exhibit A of her previous administrative performance is not intellectually honest.

There is also her experience as chairperson of the Regional Development Council, as a neophyte mayor no less. During this period, the Davao Region’s reported GDP growth rate increased from 3.9% in 2011 to 7.1% in 2012. Punongbayan could have examined whether Davao City’s fiscal policies encouraged investment. He could have compared local business competitiveness during her administration with that of other major Philippine cities. He could have investigated the city’s debt position and infrastructure development. He could have identified both accomplishments and shortcomings. Instead, he largely bypasses these questions in favor of revisiting controversies associated with Rodrigo Duterte. 

Punongbayan also gives insufficient consideration to Sara Duterte’s engagement with the Philippine business community. The Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry, or PCCI, is the country’s largest and oldest business organization. Duterte has served as a keynote speaker at its annual Business Conference and Expo for five consecutive years as Vice President: 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, and this year, 2026. This demonstrates sustained engagement with an important institution representing Philippine enterprises and suggests confidence in her leadership.

More interestingly, RCBC (Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation) chief economist Michael Ricafort commented on market developments following Sara Duterte’s announcement concerning the 2028 presidential race. Speaking on Bilyonaryo News Channel, Ricafort observed: “You know, the stock market is up today, and it’s among the highest since July 25. That’s the highest in nearly seven months.”

This suggests a positive investor perception of the possibility of a Sara Duterte presidency. Instead, Punongbayan appears more interested in predicting political disaster. He certainly does not represent the voice of the largest domestic entrepreneurial bloc.

One of the most serious allegations discussed in Punongbayan’s article concerns financial transactions involving Cale88 Foods Corporation, a company linked to Duterte’s husband. According to the account of the impeachment proceedings, the Anti-Money Laundering Council identified approximately ₱319.33 million in remittances originating from China and Hong Kong. During cross-examination, defense lawyer Mark Vinluan questioned AMLC Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura about whether the records showed that the China-based entities involved in the transactions represented the Chinese government. Buenaventura acknowledged that the records presented contained no such showing. Vinluan then asked whether the records established that China, as a country, had funneled money to Cale88. Again, Buenaventura stated that the records did not establish this.  

Those who see the term “Suspicious Transaction Report” and think that, because it contains the word “suspicious,” it constitutes proof of criminal activity are wrong. AMLC records included covered transaction reports and suspicious transaction reports involving Cale88. An STR is not a criminal conviction. It is not a court finding that money laundering occurred, that Cale88 is a fraudulent company, or that the Chinese government funded Vice President Sara Duterte, nor is it proof that a transaction was illegal. Buenaventura himself emphasized the distinction between reporting a transaction as suspicious and ultimately proving money laundering or another offense.

Punongbayan also references the prosecution’s decision to withdraw three of the four impeachment articles. A nationwide poll by WR Numero Research found that 60% of Filipinos believe the prosecution’s evidence is weak in the ongoing impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. The survey, part of the Philippine Public Opinion Monitor conducted from October 7–13, 2026, interviewed 1,225 respondents nationwide.

The controversy surrounding Duterte’s confidential funds is a nothingburger. Her office spent ₱125 million in confidential funds over 11 days in 2022, while state auditors subsequently disallowed approximately ₱73 million in expenditures. However, an audit disallowance is not automatically a finding of personal enrichment, nor is it equivalent to a criminal conviction.

The prosecution’s Commission on Audit (COA) witness, Roderick Wamil, was questioned by Senator-Judge JV Ejercito concerning evidence that Duterte personally pocketed confidential funds. According to Wamil’s account, the testimony did not establish that she personally received or pocketed the money. Wamil also testified that spending ₱125 million in confidential funds within 11 days is not illegal under current audit rules. 

There is also the testimony of National Bureau of Investigation witnesses concerning the dropped fourth article against Sara Duterte, involving a supposed hitman. Three witnesses, including NBI Director Melvin Matibag, testified that they possessed no information about the existence of a hitman.

Recently, Rappler published a malicious and insinuating article entitled “Bida ang saya: Is your fave Jollibee spot owned by Sara Duterte?” In a statement dated October 17, Duterte denied owning a Jollibee franchise or any other franchise. She explained that she had previously invested in a corporation, GenCorp, associated with a legitimate business organization, but disputed the suggestion that this made her the direct owner or operator of its individual franchises, such as Jollibee.

Investing in a corporation does not automatically make an individual the personal owner, manager, or operator of every business establishment controlled by that corporation.

Most importantly, according to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Director Gerardo del Rosario and official corporate records, including Articles of Incorporation and General Information Sheets, Vice President Duterte’s name is not listed as an incorporator, director, or stockholder in GenCorp’s SEC filings.  

According to nonpartisan public opinion research firm Momentum Research, 61% of Gen Z respondents favored Sara Duterte for the 2028 presidential elections, alongside 68.3% of Millennials in the same polling data. 

   

Email: contact@asiancenturyph.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/asiancenturyph/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AsianCenturyPH

Substack:

Also read: