(UPDATE) MANILA, Philippines —The Senate impeachment court, through its Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero, on Monday approved the prosecution's bid to compel the release of tax, bank and Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) records tied to Vice President Sara Duterte and husband, Manases Carpio.
During the seventh day of Duterte's impeachment trial, Escudero said that this was not the first time that bank records were examined in an impeachment trial.
He said that the Senate granted the request of the prosecution for bank records during the impeachment trial of former Chief Justice Renato Corona.
"Court finds that the requested documents meet the requirements set forth above, they are reasonably described, readily identifiable, prima facie relevant and material to the allegations under Article II," Escudero said.
House of Representatives Prosecutor Chel Diokno cited the 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 was not a "fishing expedition" before the Senate impeachment court.
Diokno said a fishing expedition occurred when a party sought documents without any factual basis and merely hoped to uncover evidence that could later be used against the opposing party. He maintained that the prosecution's subpoena request did not fit that definition because it was 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 provided 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 presented before the House Committee on Justice.
He also argued that the Articles of Impeachment sufficiently alleged 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 Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (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 required 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.
Defense: Anti-Money Laundering Act confidentiality absolute
The Defense team insisted that AMLC records were absolutely confidential.
Counsel Michael Poa said that while the Defense was "not against transparency" or accountability, the confidentiality of AMLC reports was protected by law and could not simply be set aside.
"We are not against transparency. We are not against accountability," Poa said. "In the search for truth, transparency, accountability, we must still work within the limits imposed by the Constitution, the laws, and the rules of the land."
Poa also said that items in a subpoena "must be particularly described," accusing the prosecution of "asking for everything" in their motions, which the Defense 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.
Subpoena not a search warrant
Diokno also said that a subpoena 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 compelled the production of specified documents and did 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 wanted the Senate impeachment court to compel and explained why each was important to the case, which he said satisfied 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 High Court has consistently examined a public official's complete financial history—including lawful income and SALNs —to determine whether acquired assets exceeded legitimate financial capacity.
He pointed to decisions in the Rafael, Rabusa, and Ligot cases, arguing that a comprehensive review of financial records is necessary to fairly assess allegations of unexplained wealth.
Relevance
Meanwhile, Sen. Joel Villanueva asked the prosecution on the relevance of the subpoenas.
"May we know what led the prosecution to conclude that the issuance of subpoena is the least intrusive and most appropriate means of obtaining the information sought? In other words, Your Honor, how can you say that this subpoena is not only relevant but also necessary and proportionate under the circumstances?" Villanueva said in Filipino and English.
Diokno said a subpoena "only means by which this court can get the needed data and information and documents."
"And it is not intrusive because, like I mentioned earlier, this is not yet a question of admissibility. What is needed is only to produce before the court the documents requested. The issue of admissibility will come later and the defense will have sufficient opportunity to object and to oppose," he said.
Diokno, mentioning the Supreme Court decision that a snapshot will not do when looking into alleged unexplained wealth, said, "We should see the SALN filed by a public servant, all his income, from his first day in service. And that will be shown both by the bank records that we are requesting to be produced as well as the BIR and tax records that we are requesting."
BIR stands for Bureau of Internal Revenue.
