Sara Duterte Metro City Chow directorship has drawn attention during her impeachment trial after a corporate lawyer confirmed that the Vice President remained listed on the company’s board from 2022 to 2025. However, the witness maintained that Duterte had no active participation in the company’s business operations despite holding formal corporate positions.

Atty. Suzette Balucanag-Punay, corporate counsel for GenCorp Industries Inc. and Metro City Chow Foods Corporation, made the statement on Wednesday, November 11, 2026, during the defense’s direct examination.

According to Punay, Duterte remained listed as a member of the company’s board of directors and Compensation Committee in its corporate records throughout the period. However, she maintained that the Vice President did not participate in the company’s transactions or perform the actual responsibilities associated with those positions.

The testimony follows an earlier presentation of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) records showing that Duterte held a 20% subscribed ownership interest in Metro City Chow, equivalent to ₱50,000 in subscribed capital.

The company’s General Information Sheets also identified her as a director during her tenure as Vice President, which began on June 30, 2022.

The issue has become relevant to the impeachment proceedings because Article VII, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution prohibits the Vice President and other specified executive officials from participating in business during their tenure.

The defense’s position centers on the distinction between being formally listed as a corporate director and actively participating in business operations.

However, questions remain about the extent of Duterte’s involvement, including whether she attended board or committee meetings, exercised corporate responsibilities, or received compensation.

The testimony is part of the broader impeachment proceedings examining allegations involving Duterte’s conduct while in public office.

Whether her continued corporate directorship and reported ownership interest violated constitutional restrictions remains a matter for legal determination. No final finding on this specific issue has been established by the testimony alone.