THE Senate impeachment court on Monday approved the prosecution’s request to subpoena the financial records of Vice President Sara Duterte, her husband, Manases Carpio, and their businesses.
During the seventh day of Duterte’s impeachment trial, Presiding Officer Sen. Francis Escudero said the records are prima facie relevant and material to Article II (unexplained wealth) and are not a “fishing expedition” because they are intended to establish a factual baseline for assessing whether Duterte’s assets and financial transactions during her term are disproportionate to her lawful income.
“After a careful examination of the records requested, the court finds that the requested documents meet the requirements set forth. They are reasonably described, readily identifiable, and prima facie relevant and material to the allegations under Article II,” Escudero said.
He said that this was not the first time that bank records have been examined in an impeachment trial.
The Senate granted the request of the prosecution for the production of bank records during the impeachment trial of former chief justice Renato Corona.
“In granting that request, the court cited Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1405, which expressly recognizes ‘cases of impeachment’ as an exception to the confidentiality of bank deposits, and the rights to privacy of depositors,” he added.
Escudero said the court allowed records from 2007 to 2021, rejecting the defense’s argument that these are “prior term” records, but clarified that they may only be used to establish a “factual baseline” and not to introduce “additional independent impeachable offenses.”
“The production of records from 2007 to 2021 is therefore authorized strictly for that limited purpose. Their admissibility and evidentiary use shall remain subject to the prosecution establishing their connection to the alleged unexplained wealth during the respondent’s present term in relation to Article II of the Articles of Impeachment,” he said.
The court also allowed examination of the bank records of Duterte’s husband, saying their financial records are relevant because spouses are required to disclose assets under RA 6713.
“The law is clear on the matter. The legal necessity of examining the financial records of Attorney Carpio is firmly cemented by the default property regime of absolute community of property governing his marriage to the respondent,” Escudero said.
“Absent any proof of a different property regime governing their marriage, any funds deposited in the bank accounts of Attorney Carpio, are legally presumed to form a single, indivisible mass of community property jointly owned with the respondent vice president,” he added.
The court granted the prosecution’s request to issue subpoenas to 19 corporate entities whose links to the vice president were supported by general information sheets, articles of partnership and Duterte’s statements of assets, liabilities and net worth.
However, the court denied requests covering JTC Group of Companies Philippines, Inc. and Pikimong Pikimong Philippines Corp., as it ruled that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie connection between the companies and either Duterte or Carpio.
He said the prosecution had not shown a direct business interest or a sufficient basis to disregard the firms’ separate juridical personalities.
The court also limited the subpoenas to peso-denominated bank accounts, denying the request insofar as it covered foreign currency deposits.
The impeachment court also granted the prosecution’s request to subpoena tax records from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), as it found that the requested documents sufficiently described and were prima facie relevant to the allegations under Article II.
The court said it was unconvinced by the respondent’s argument that the issuance of the subpoena would usurp the authority of the BIR.
“This court is not determining tax deficiencies or civil liabilities, which remain within the province of the BIR. It is exercising its constitutional mandate to determine public accountability under the Articles of Impeachment,” Escudero said.
“Neither does the pendency of a BIR audit suspend or limit the Senate’s exclusive jurisdiction to try impeachment cases,” he added.
Victory for the truth
House prosecutor and Bicol Saro Party-List Rep. Terry Ridon lauded the decision of the Senate impeachment court.
“This is a victory for the truth, a victory for accountability, and a victory for the people,” the lawmaker said in Filipino in a statement.
House prosecution panel adviser Robert Ace Barbers said the truth “can no longer be concealed” after the Senate impeachment court approved the prosecution’s request to subpoena the financial and tax records of the vice president and her husband.
“The impeachment court has made it clear that the search for truth cannot be frustrated by claims of confidentiality when the Constitution itself demands a full and fair examination of the evidence,” Barbers said.
The subpoenas cover the vice president’s bank records, Anti-Money Laundering Council documents, Bureau of Internal Revenue records and other financial documents that the prosecution said are material to proving the allegations under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment involving unexplained wealth.
Defense is prepared
The vice president’s defense team said it had already prepared a game plan ahead of the Senate impeachment court’s decision to subpoena the Duterte’s financial and tax records, insisting the ruling would not derail the impeachment trial.
“We already have a game plan as to how we’re going to approach these things, and I don’t think this will duly delay the proceedings. In fact, Director [Melvin] Matibag [of the National Bureau of Investigation] will be presented tomorrow and we are prepared for that,” Poa said during a press briefing after the ruling.
Poa maintained that the defense had strong legal grounds to oppose the subpoena request but acknowledged that the impeachment court ultimately had the authority to decide the matter, adding that while the panel would have preferred its objections to be sustained, it respects the court’s ruling.
He added that elevating the issue to the Supreme Court remains an available legal remedy, although the defense has yet to decide whether to pursue it, stressing that the possibility of the subpoenas being granted had always been part of the team’s preparations.
Not a search warrant
In oral arguments before the decision was handed down, House prosecutor Chel Diokno argued the subpoenas for records should not be equated with a search warrant, saying the two legal processes are fundamentally different.
Diokno responded to questions from Senator-Judge Pia Cayetano by explaining that a subpoena merely compels the production of specified documents and does not authorize authorities to enter an office or search any premises. He said unlike a search warrant, which is governed by constitutional safeguards on searches and seizures, a subpoena is issued under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
“A subpoena is not a license to enter an office or to search any place,” Diokno told the impeachment court, adding that records produced through a subpoena are not automatically considered evidence. Instead, he said either party must first offer the documents during the proceedings before the court determines whether they are admissible.
He also rejected comparisons between subpoenas and search warrants, saying evidence obtained through a search warrant is directly submitted to the issuing court, while documents produced under a subpoena merely become available for the parties to examine and present if they are relevant to their case.
Diokno maintained that the prosecution’s request satisfies the legal requirements for a subpoena duces tecum because the documents being sought are both relevant and specifically identified. He argued that Duterte’s bank, BIR, and AMLC records are material to the impeachment charge involving alleged unexplained wealth, saying the prosecution cannot determine whether her declared assets are consistent with her lawful income without examining those records.
He added that the prosecution clearly specified the documents it wants the Senate impeachment court to compel and explained why each is important to the case, which he said satisfies the requirements of relevance and definiteness under the Rules of Civil Procedure.
To support the prosecution’s position, Diokno cited Supreme Court rulings involving allegations of unexplained wealth, saying the Court has consistently examined a public official’s complete financial history — including lawful income and statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs) — to determine whether acquired assets exceeded legitimate financial capacity.
Diokno cited AMLC reports showing billions of pesos in transactions linked to the vice president’s accounts to argue that the prosecution’s request for her financial records is not a “fishing expedition” before the Senate impeachment court.
Addressing a defense claim, Diokno said a fishing expedition occurs when a party seeks documents without any factual basis and merely hopes to uncover evidence that could later be used against the opposing party. He maintained that the prosecution’s subpoena request does not fit that definition because it is anchored on AMLC records and testimony previously presented before the House Committee on Justice.
Diokno told the impeachment court that the AMLC executive director had testified that about P6.7 billion in transactions passed through Duterte’s accounts from 2007 to the present. He added that the same records showed more than P3 billion in transactions during Duterte’s tenure as Davao City mayor and vice mayor, which he said provides sufficient basis for the prosecution to seek her bank records.
“We are not just guessing that there is something there because the AMLC itself has confirmed that there were covered and suspicious transaction reports submitted to them,” Diokno said, referring to documents earlier presented before the House Committee on Justice.
He also argued that the Articles of Impeachment sufficiently allege the “ultimate facts” supporting the charge of unexplained wealth, including accusations that Duterte amassed wealth disproportionate to her lawful income, failed to fully disclose assets in her SALNs, and continued business interests while in office. Diokno added that the succeeding portions of the Articles detail the evidence supporting those allegations.
Diokno further said jurisprudence requires courts to examine a public official’s financial records throughout the entirety of his or her incumbency when resolving allegations of unexplained wealth. He said this includes reviewing SALNs, lawful sources of income, and other financial documents to determine whether an official’s assets exceed legitimate earnings, making the prosecution’s subpoena request relevant to the impeachment case.
Confidentiality covered by law
The defense team insisted that records held by the AMLC are absolutely confidential, as it opposed the House prosecution’s request to subpoena the bank and tax records of the vice president and her husband.
Poa said that while the defense is “not against transparency” or accountability, the confidentiality of AMLC reports is protected by law and cannot simply be set aside.
“While the impeachment court is a constitutional creation, it cannot go over and above the Constitution itself... Section 8-A, at least for our position, is an absolute prohibition,” Poa said.
“Unlike the Bank Secrecy Law, where impeachment is an exception, Section 8-A does not provide one. If we were to compel and issue a subpoena against these AMLC records, we’re actually compelling the officials to violate this very section of the law,” he added.
Section 8-A of the Anti-Money Laundering Act requires the AMLC and its secretariat to “securely protect” information they receive or process and prohibits them from revealing “in any manner” any information known to them by reason of their office, even after they leave the agency.
The law also directs the AMLC to formulate rules on the exchange, security, confidentiality, handling, storage, and access to such information.
Poa said that items in a subpoena “must be particularly described,” accusing the prosecution of “asking for everything” in their motions, which they called a fishing expedition.
“It would be intrusive because we will be opening up all the financial transactions for almost 20 years of the respondent,” he said. WITH KRISTINA MARALIT
