ANY subpoena for the tax records of Vice President Sara Duterte during her impeachment trial would likely follow the legal procedure adopted during the 2012 trial of former chief justice Renato Corona, Senate impeachment court spokesman Regie Tongol said on Thursday.
Speaking during a press briefing, Tongol said the court had already granted the House prosecution panel’s request for a subpoena duces tecum and subpoena ad testificandum covering LandBank officials and documents related to Article I of the impeachment complaint, which covers the misuse or misappropriation of confidential funds.
He said the defense has no immediate legal remedy to oppose the issuance of such subpoenas, which are usually granted ex parte, meaning they may be issued without first hearing objections from the opposing party.
“The defense may raise objections later during the presentation of evidence, the offer of exhibits, or specific questioning of witnesses,” Tongol said.
Tongol distinguished the subpoena issued for LandBank officials from possible subpoenas involving bank records, Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) documents and reports from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC).
He noted that requests involving financial and tax records raise more complex legal questions because they are governed by bank secrecy laws, taxpayer confidentiality provisions, privacy regulations and other statutory restrictions.
“The issue is more contentious when it comes to bank records, BIR records and AMLC reports because different confidentiality and privacy laws are involved,” he said.
Corona trial a model?
Asked whether tax records could be released if authorized by the president, Tongol cited the impeachment trial of former chief justice Corona as a possible precedent.
He recalled that then-BIR commissioner Kim Henares sought presidential authorization before complying with a Senate impeachment court subpoena.
The commissioner requested permission because failure to obey the subpoena could result in contempt of court, while releasing confidential tax records without proper authority could expose the commissioner to criminal liability under the National Internal Revenue Code.
Tongol explained that under the Tax Code, the president may authorize the disclosure of tax information in response to a lawful subpoena.
“The process during the Corona impeachment trial was considered clean because the commissioner first secured presidential permission before producing the records,” he said.
He added that this precedent could become one of the factors considered by the impeachment court should it decide to issue a subpoena to the current BIR commissioner.
Subpoena must come first
Tongol stressed that a subpoena from the impeachment court would have to be issued before the BIR commissioner could seek the necessary authority to release confidential tax records.
He also addressed public references to the so-called BIR box, a term associated with the Corona impeachment trial.
He said the phrase has become a misnomer because it refers only to the physical container used by then-BIR officials when they submitted documents to the Senate.
According to Tongol, documents requested through a subpoena may be delivered in any form, including folders, envelopes, loose papers, or boxes.
“It was entirely the discretion of the BIR commissioner at that time to place the documents in a green box,” he said. “There is no requirement that future submissions come in the same form.”
Asked whether the defense could elevate a subpoena order to the Supreme Court, Tongol said legal opinion remains divided.
He said one school of thought maintains that the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, has the sole constitutional authority to try and decide impeachment cases, making its interlocutory orders generally beyond judicial review.
Another legal view, however, holds that Supreme Court intervention may be available if it can be shown that the impeachment court committed grave abuse of discretion, acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or violated constitutional rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.
Tongol said it remains uncertain what legal course the parties might pursue should the impeachment court issue a subpoena for confidential records.
The Senate impeachment proceedings are expected to continue next week, with the possible issuance of additional subpoenas and further arguments from both the House prosecution panel and the defense.
Nobody is above the law
Malacañang on Thursday reiterated that no one is above the law, as it questioned the defense team’s opposition to allowing access to the vice president’s bank and tax records during the resumption of her impeachment trial.
Palace Press Officer Claire Castro said the impeachment trial should remain focused on uncovering the truth and not political drama following the prosecution’s completion of its presentation of evidence under Article IV of the Articles of Impeachment.
“We expect no drama, no concealment of the truth, and no evasion of the real issues being tackled in the impeachment trial,” Castro said during a press conference.
“What our countrymen want is for the truth to come out, not drama inside the Senate,” she added.
The prosecution earlier informed the impeachment court that it had completed presenting its witnesses and documentary evidence under Article IV, paving the way for the trial to proceed to allegations involving Duterte’s confidential funds.
Castro challenged Duterte to demonstrate transparency by allowing access to her financial records after the defense opposed requests for bank, AMLC and BIR documents on constitutional grounds.
Responding to the defense’s argument that impeachment should not be used to circumvent constitutional rights, Castro said the “magic word” in the proceedings should instead be “truth.”
“Truth. That is what should be upheld in the investigation of any case, especially in an impeachment trial,” she said.
Castro said if the vice president truly had nothing to fear, she should prove it by allowing the disclosure of records sought by the prosecution.
“No one is above the law, so it means VP Sara is not above the law. She stated that she could present documents and that she is hiding nothing — or rather, that they have nothing to fear. So, if there is nothing to fear, it is her obligation to the public to reveal the truth,” Castro said.
“It would be better to show that she committed no wrongdoing and is hiding nothing regarding public funds,” she added.
The prosecution has sought access to Duterte’s bank, AMLC and BIR records to support allegations involving confidential funds, while the defense has argued that compelling the production of such records would violate constitutional protections.
Castro, however, said no request has so far reached the Office of the President seeking authority to open the vice president’s sealed BIR records.
Castro also dismissed the defense’s argument that President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s willingness to reconcile with the Duterte family diminished the gravity of the vice president’s alleged threats against him.
She said the president’s remarks about reconciliation reflected his desire to unite with all Filipinos, regardless of political differences, and had no bearing on the allegations being heard in the impeachment court.
“Even if the President is willing to reconcile with everyone who disagrees with him, that does not erase the threat against the president, the first lady and the former House speaker,” Castro said.
Hearing days cut
Tongol also said on Thursday the withdrawal of six prosecution witnesses could cut as many as 12 hearing days from Article 4 of Duterte’s impeachment trial, although the entire proceeding may still stretch to about 102 days.
Tongol said the initial schedule assumed that each witness could occupy about two trial days.
“That’s 12 days out of the expected 20 days,” Tongol said, referring to the possible reduction in the prosecution’s presentation under Article 4.
The prosecution had initially allotted 11 hearing days for about 10 witnesses, with an additional day intended for possible delays. Based on the pace of the proceedings, however, Tongol said calling all the witnesses could have taken about 20 days.
The shorter witness list does not automatically mean the full impeachment trial will conclude earlier, as the prosecution could use the saved time for other articles, reserve witnesses or additional evidence.
Motions, objections, questioning by senator-judges and legal debates could also consume additional sessions, he added.
In a separate radio interview, Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian said his own count placed the possible length of the trial at around 102 hearing days, with only six days completed so far.
“We are only on the sixth day, so there is still a long way to go,” Gatchalian said in Filipino.
Tongol said it remains too early to determine whether the days saved under Article 4 would ultimately shorten the entire trial.
He cited the prolonged debate over subpoenas for bank, tax and AMLC records as an example of how unforeseen legal questions could extend the proceedings.
The impeachment court is set to resume sessions next week, with the prosecution continuing its presentation of evidence before moving to the other articles. WITH PNA
