THE Senate impeachment court will vote on Monday on whether to grant the House prosecution panel’s request to subpoena the tax records, bank accounts and Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) records of Vice President Sara Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio.
Senate Impeachment Court Presiding Officer Francis Escudero said the senator-judges agreed in a caucus to further study the prosecution’s motion before deciding through a formal vote.
The issue was among the key matters tackled during the sixth day of the impeachment trial, where both the prosecution and defense presented oral arguments on the proposed issuance of a subpoena duces tecum for the financial records.
The House prosecution panel argued that the requested documents are material to proving allegations under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment, which concerns the vice president’s alleged unexplained wealth.
Leading the prosecution’s arguments, Rep. Chel Diokno said the subpoena seeks to uncover the truth by obtaining records that could establish whether Duterte accumulated wealth disproportionate to her lawful income while serving in government.
Diokno argued that the impeachment court possesses broad constitutional powers to compel the production of evidence necessary to determine the truth. He maintained that invoking bank secrecy and tax confidentiality should not prevent the court from exercising its authority in an impeachment proceeding.
He said that neither the defense nor any other body can restrict that authority, arguing that the Bank Secrecy Law recognizes impeachment as an exception and that the Data Privacy Act permits the disclosure of information through a duly issued subpoena.
He added that Duterte amassed substantial wealth while in public office and allegedly failed to declare some assets in her statements of assets, liabilities and net worth. Diokno also cited financial transactions amounting to more than P3 billion during the period from 2007 to 2013, when Duterte served as mayor and vice mayor of Davao City, saying these warrant closer scrutiny by the impeachment court.
The defense panel, however, opposed the request, arguing that compelling the release of confidential financial records without first establishing sufficient evidence would violate due process.
Defense spokesman Michael Poa said the prosecution’s request amounts to a “fishing expedition,” contending that the House prosecutors are seeking evidence to support allegations rather than presenting evidence that already exists.
“Jurisprudence provides that for a subpoena to be valid, it must comply with twin requirements of one, definiteness, and two, relevance,” Poa said.
He argued that the complaints cited by the prosecution, including the Saballa-Cabrera complaint against Duterte, did not attach financial documents proving the alleged accumulation of illegal wealth.
He also invoked the Bank Secrecy Law, the Anti-Money Laundering Act and the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, which contain provisions protecting the confidentiality of bank deposits, AMLC records and tax information, except under circumstances allowed by law.
Poa asked the impeachment court to reject the prosecution’s bid to subpoena the bank and tax records of Duterte’s husband, saying he “is not an impeachable officer.” In his rebuttal, Diokno maintained that issuing a subpoena does not deprive Duterte of due process because the defense would still have the opportunity to challenge the evidence once presented before the impeachment court.
Diokno also rejected the defense’s position that financial records predating Duterte’s term as vice president are irrelevant, saying her financial activities as Davao City vice mayor and mayor bear directly on the impeachment charge of betrayal of public trust and her fitness to remain in office.
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.
Poa, in turn, reiterated that constitutional due process includes respecting statutory safeguards on confidential records, arguing that no individual should be stripped of legal protections during impeachment proceedings.
The Senate impeachment court vote Monday will determine the scope of documentary evidence to be presented as the trial proceeds.
Also on Wednesday, lead House prosecutor Gerville Luistro withdrew five witnesses originally lined up for the fourth article of impeachment, leaving National Bureau of Investigation director Melvin Matibag as the prosecution’s final witness on the charge involving Vice President Sara Duterte’s alleged threats against President Marcos, the first lady and former speaker Martin Romualdez.
Luistro said the prosecution decided to drop a representative of the Philippine National Police Firearms and Explosives Office, journalists Mickel Flores and Bonz Magsambol, a sheriff involved in a 2011 incident with Duterte, a family member of an alleged threat victim and a psychiatrist, citing “redundancy... and lack of necessity.” Luistro said the Senate impeachment court that the matters the witnesses were expected to establish had already been sufficiently covered by authenticated video evidence, previous witness testimonies and admissions made during the proceedings, making their testimonies unnecessary.
With the revised witness lineup, Matibag will testify on Tuesday as the prosecution’s final witness for Article IV, which concerns Duterte’s alleged threats.
After Matibag’s testimony, the prosecution will begin presenting evidence on Wednesday the first article of impeachment involving the alleged misuse of confidential funds and asked the impeachment court to issue subpoenas for its first three witnesses, including House legislative archives official Marivic Pareja and former Land Bank branch managers Violetta Constantino and Nenita Camposano.
The defense team on Wednesday said it is shifting its strategy in the impeachment trial after the Senate impeachment court granted the request for subpoena to the three witnesses on the alleged misuse of confidential funds.
“Right now, we’re just shifting gears because I think after Director Matibag, we will proceed with Article I. So now, of course, we’re focusing on Article I,” Poa said during a press conference.
“Although we’re prepared for it, of course, as the trial goes, there will be fine-tuning here and there. So that’s what we’ll be focusing on,” he added.
