(UPDATE) MANILA, Philippines — Rep. Chel Diokno and lawyer Michael Poa presented their oral arguments for the prosecution and defense respectively at the impeahcment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte on Wednesday, focusing on the prosecution’s request for subpoenas covering Duterte’s bank records, Bureau of Internal Revenue documents and Anti-Money Laundering Council records, which are relevant to the Article II charge on alleged unexplained wealth.
No witnesses were scheduled to testify during Wednesday’s proceedings.
The Defense team asked the Senate impeachment court to deny the House prosecution's request to compel the release of the vice president's bank and tax records.
Poa said the issue was not whether the impeachment court possessed the power to issue a subpoena for the said records but the real issue was whether such power may be exercised in a manner that disregarded due process and compelled the production of documents and information beyond what was allowed by law.
"For a subpoena to be valid, it must comply with twin requirements: definiteness and relevance," Poa said.
"When a subpoena becomes oppressive, unreasonable, merely issued for the very purpose that there is a hope… something incriminating will come out, it ceases to be an instrument of justice. It becomes a weapon of fishing expedition," he added.
Diokno had argued that the defense’s “fishing expedition” claim that the prosecution’s bid to obtain Duterte’s financial records amounted to a “fishing expedition,” citing a Supreme Court ruling that upheld the use of subpoenas in an unexplained wealth case.
Responding to the defense’s oral arguments, Diokno pointed to the 2022 Supreme Court decision in Republic v. Rabusa, where the High Court overturned lower court rulings that had treated subpoenas for bank records as an improper fishing expedition.
He said the Supreme Court ruled that subpoenas issued in unexplained wealth proceedings were proper and that the evidence obtained through them should have been admitted, arguing that the same principle applies to the prosecution’s request for Duterte’s bank, Bureau of Internal Revenue and Anti-Money Laundering Council records.
Diokno also disputed the defense’s claim that the requested records were confidential under the Bank Secrecy Law, Anti-Money Laundering Act, National Internal Revenue Code and Data Privacy Act, saying those laws do not curtail the Senate impeachment court’s constitutional authority to compel relevant evidence.
He maintained that the impeachment court’s duty was to determine the truth behind the allegations, not to shield relevant information from scrutiny.
“Confidentiality, Your Honors, should not be the prevailing principle in this proceeding. The truth is not confidential,” Diokno said.
Poa said that the House prosecution's attempts to make public the vice president's tax and financial records were in violation of the law, particularly the Anti-Money Laundering Act and the Bank Secrecy Law.
Poa argued that the prosecution first accused the vice president of amassing unexplained wealth before looking for evidence to support the allegation, which he said, violated due process.
He also said that the requested records dating back to 2007 were overly broad and irrelevant because Duterte was then serving as Davao City vice mayor, an office that is not impeachable "The prosecution has repeatedly invoked accountability, your honors, we agree with them. No one is above the law but in the same manner, no one must fall below or be outside the protection of the law," Poa said.
"Impeachment is indeed a powerful constitutional tool. Impeachment is not a magic word that one can just wave to transform an illegal act into a legal act, unlawful access to lawful access," he added.
Diokno on Wednesday rejected the defense’s argument that Duterte’s financial records from before she assumed national office were irrelevant, saying her transactions as Davao City vice mayor and mayor were directly related to the impeachment case.
During the prosecution’s oral arguments, Diokno argued that the defense could not exclude records predating Duterte’s vice presidency because the charge of betrayal of public trust centers on her fitness to remain in office.
He cited an AMLC report showing more than P3 billion in financial transactions attributed to Duterte from 2007 to 2013, when she served as Davao City’s vice mayor and later mayor. During the same period, he said, Duterte declared a net worth ranging from about P8.3 million to P57.3 million in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs).
“The Vice President’s financial activity as vice mayor and mayor of Davao City relates directly to the main fact in issue in this case—her fitness or unfitness to serve as Vice President,” Diokno said.
To bolster the prosecution’s position, Diokno cited the impeachment trial of former Chief Justice Renato Corona, where the Senate subpoenaed and examined bank records, including deposits made before Corona became chief justice.
“Since this impeachment court has the sole power to determine what constitutes an impeachable offense, no one—not the Supreme Court, much less the defense—can impose limitations on that power,” Diokno said.
‘Not an impeachable officer’
The Defense team also argued that Duterte's husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, was "not an impeachable officer" as the prosecution pushed for the disclosure of their bank and tax records during the Senate impeachment trial.
Poa said the prosecution's request was "fatally overbroad" because an impeachable offense is an act committed when a public official is occupying an impeachable office, as stated in the Supreme Court's decision on Duterte vs the House of Representatives.
"Definitely not an impeachable office, your honors. How is that relevant?" Poa said during the oral arguments.
Poa also said that the Anti-Money Laundering Act and the tax code prohibit disclosure without an impeachment exception, and while the bank secrecy law does carve one out, it is "not automatic."
"Impeachment is not a magic word or a magic wand that one can just wave to transform an illegal act into a legal act," he added.
