What Baste Duterte Told the Senate About Davao City's GenCorp Contracts

Key Takeaways

• The mayor appeared on September 29 after the court moved his initial September 28 setting and declared him a hostile witness.
• His answers gave the defense a denial of interference and gave prosecutors a documented network of business relationships to examine.

The September 29 appearance

Davao City Mayor Sebastian "Baste" Duterte took the witness stand on Day 31 of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial. He had been subpoenaed to appear from September 28 to 30 and to bring city records involving GenCorp Industries Inc. After asking for more time to organize and authenticate the material, he appeared on September 29.

The prosecution asked that he be treated as a hostile witness because he is the respondent's brother and had already issued a public statement defending the transactions. Presiding officer Francis Escudero granted the request. That procedural ruling allowed leading questions; it did not make Baste Duterte an accused person or establish that any contract was unlawful.

What the city records showed

The mayor confirmed Davao City's account of 19 GenCorp contracts worth approximately ₱33.26 million from 2022 onward. Four were awarded through competitive public bidding and 15 through small value procurement. Thirteen had been completed, delivered, and paid, while six were still ongoing.

That account differs from earlier PhilGEPS testimony describing 14 or 15 Davao City awards worth about ₱34.2 million, depending on how the records were counted in reports. The city and procurement system figures should therefore be read as separately attributed datasets, not as one settled total.

Duterte acknowledged that, as mayor, he was the head of the procuring entity and the final accountable officer. He said assistant city administrator Tristan Dwight Domingo had authority to sign contracts on his behalf and that the bids and awards committee performed the detailed evaluation. He had not personally examined GenCorp's corporate records or reviewed each of the 19 contracts.

The conflict of interest question

Sara Duterte listed GenCorp as a business interest in her 2024 and 2025 statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth. The corporate records presented to the impeachment court did not list her name, leaving the court with a discrepancy between her own disclosures and the company's filings.

Baste Duterte said he did not know about his sister's declared interest when the city awarded the contracts. When Escudero asked whether he would have allowed the awards had he known she was a GenCorp stockholder, the mayor said he would not have allowed them.

The answer matters because the prosecution is using the transactions in its case concerning the Vice President's wealth and business interests. It is not by itself a finding that she held a prohibited financial interest, influenced procurement, or received money from a city contract. Those propositions still require evidence and a judgment from the court.

What he denied under cross examination

The defense asked whether Sara Duterte had ever intervened directly or indirectly in Davao City procurement, called or messaged about GenCorp, or requested special treatment for the company. The mayor answered no.

His evidence therefore cut in two directions. The prosecution obtained admissions about the contracts, his accountability as head of the procuring entity, and his lack of personal review. The defense obtained an express denial that the Vice President used their family relationship to influence the awards.

The business relationship revealed in court

Duterte confirmed that Jaime Tan Cruz, identified in reporting and corporate records as a major GenCorp stockholder, is a friend of former president Rodrigo Duterte and a business partner of Baste Duterte in Chinese Gen Bee Foods Corp. A 2026 general information sheet also listed Paolo Duterte in that company.

Cruz has other documented corporate ties to Sara Duterte, including Metro City Chow Foods Corp. He also served as Rodrigo Duterte's special envoy to China for trade and investments. Baste Duterte said he did not know Cruz was connected to GenCorp before the company was raised in the trial.

The overlap establishes a relationship among people connected to the companies. It does not, without more evidence, establish that procurement was rigged or that the Vice President directed the awards. The impeachment court must decide how much weight the network and the inconsistent records carry.

What happens after the testimony

The court canceled its September 30 sitting for what its spokesperson called a strategic procedural pause before whole day sessions scheduled from October 1. Baste Duterte's testimony therefore ended the September 29 session rather than continuing the next day as the original subpoena window suggested.

Readers should watch for the city documents to be formally offered and tested, further testimony linking the SALN entry to corporate ownership, and any evidence that addresses whether the Vice President benefited from or influenced a government transaction. The existence of a contract, a family relationship, and a declared business interest are important facts, but the legal conclusion still belongs to the impeachment court.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why was Baste Duterte declared a hostile witness?

The prosecution called him while pursuing an impeachment charge against his sister and argued that their relationship and his public defense of the transactions created an adverse interest. Presiding officer Francis Escudero agreed, allowing prosecutors to ask leading questions. The label did not mean he was accused of the impeachment charges.

Did Baste Duterte say Sara Duterte influenced the contracts?

No. His evidence was an express denial, not proof that settles the issue. Senator judges may compare his account with documentary evidence and later witnesses before assigning it weight.

Why do reports give different totals for the GenCorp contracts?

The city's account identified 19 contracts worth about ₱33.26 million. Earlier PhilGEPS testimony identified a smaller set of awards worth about ₱34.2 million. The difference appears to reflect the records and grouping used by each source, so this article attributes each figure instead of treating them as interchangeable.