Senate impeachment court Presiding Officer, Senator-judge Francis “Chiz” Escudero —Inquirer photo/Niño Jesus Orbeta
MANILA, Philippines — The Senate impeachment court on Monday cleared a major hurdle for House prosecutors in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, authorizing subpoenas for her bank, tax and Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) records that could provide key evidence for allegations she amassed unexplained wealth.
In a ruling on the prosecution’s Article II case, the impeachment court ordered the production of the financial records of Duterte; her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio; 19 companies allegedly linked to the couple; and Carpio’s law partnership, saying the documents are prima facie relevant in determining whether the Vice President’s assets and financial transactions were disproportionate to her lawful income.
The court excluded foreign-currency deposits from the subpoenas because of statutory confidentiality protections and denied requests covering JTC Group of Companies Philippines Inc. and Pikimong Pikimong Philippines Corp., saying prosecutors failed to sufficiently establish their links to Duterte or Carpio.
Article continues after this advertisement
READ: Impeachment court exempts 2 firms from bank, tax records subpoena
The ruling gives the prosecution access to documentary evidence it says is essential to proving allegations that Duterte accumulated wealth beyond her legitimate income and failed to fully disclose her assets while in public office.
Senator-judge Francis “Chiz” Escudero, the impeachment court’s presiding officer, stressed that the subpoenas merely compel the production of records and do not automatically make them admissible as evidence.
“The issuance of a subpoena is merely a preliminary procedural step and does not, by itself, authorize the disclosure, inspection, or admission of the requested tax records into evidence,” Escudero said.
‘Prima facie relevant’
“This is not the first time that bank records have been examined by an impeachment trial,” he added in his ruling which he read for nearly 30 minutes. He described the requests as “reasonably described, readily identifiable [and] prima facie relevant.”
Article continues after this advertisement
Citing the Supreme Court ruling in Dipad v. Spouses Olivan (G.R. No. 168771), Escudero said Section 270 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), invoked by the defense, “does not address the confidentiality of [Income Tax Return]s.”
He acknowledged, however, that “the Respondent correctly invokes Section 71, and other provisions of the NIRC,” which recognizes only three instances when taxpayer records may be opened for inspection: upon order of the President, upon request of a foreign tax authority with presidential approval, or upon the taxpayer’s waiver.
Article continues after this advertisement
“Upon service, the [Bureau of Internal Revenue] Commissioner may refuse compliance or comply by invoking any of the exceptions under NIRC,” Escudero said.
He added that the defense “may, at the appropriate stage of the proceedings, raise any and all objections concerning their relevance, materiality, authenticity, admissibility, or other evidentiary infirmities.”
The court ordered the BIR to submit the income tax and value-added tax records of Duterte, Carpio and the covered companies to the impeachment court’s clerk by 9 a.m. on July 30, subject to the requirements of the tax code.
The impeachment court also rejected the defense’s objection to subpoenas for AMLC records, ruling that Supreme Court decisions have established that confidentiality provisions under the Anti-Money Laundering Act do not shield the council from lawful court subpoenas.
Citing the 2021 Republic v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 232724-27) and the 2006 Sabio v. Gordon (G.R. No. 174340) rulings, Escudero said: “If the Sandiganbayan pursuant to its subpoena powers cannot be denied of AMLC records, as well as the legislature in aid of legislation, it most certainly cannot be denied to the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.”
The court likewise approved subpoenas for Duterte’s peso-denominated bank accounts, monthly bank statements and other financial records from 2007 to 2021, rejecting the defense’s claim that the request amounted to a prohibited “fishing expedition.”
Escudero said the documents were “reasonably described, readily identifiable and prima facie relevant,” adding that records dating back to Duterte’s tenure as Davao City vice mayor and mayor may establish a financial baseline in determining whether assets accumulated during her service as Vice President were disproportionate to her lawful income.
‘Fishing expedition’ rejected
He stressed, however, that the records could not be used to introduce new impeachable offenses predating her assumption of an impeachable office.
READ: Defense team on granting of subpoena: Expected, not a huge setback
Escudero said documentary subpoenas may be issued when the records sought are sufficiently identified and shown to be relevant to issues before the impeachment court.
He rejected the defense’s argument that prosecutors were merely searching for evidence after filing the complaint, saying the requests were supported by specific allegations in Article II and limited to records that could establish or refute those claims.
The court also upheld the inclusion of Carpio’s financial records, saying they are material because spouses are required under Republic Act No. 6713 to jointly disclose assets in their statements of assets, liabilities and net worth.
Escudero, however, drew what he called a “firm legal line” on foreign-currency deposits, denying the prosecution’s request because Republic Act No. 6426 protects their confidentiality absent the depositor’s written consent. The ruling means only peso-denominated accounts and records will initially be covered by the subpoenas.
House prosecutors welcomed the ruling, saying the requested records are indispensable in proving the allegations under Article II.
“I believe it is a very well-reasoned ruling by the impeachment court, and this is a victory for the Filipino people,” said Rep. Chel Diokno, a House prosecutor, reiterating that the subpoenas are intended only to compel production of documents, not their automatic admission as evidence.
Rep. Leila de Lima, another prosecutor, said it was also a victory for the impeachment court because it “did not allow themselves to be constricted, it was not weakened by supposed confidentiality provisions of certain laws” raised by the defense.
Asked by Senator-judge Joel Villanueva, Diokno emphasized that the prosecution was merely asking the court to obtain the records for possible presentation later in the trial.
“We won’t know if the Vice President really has unexplained wealth if we do not open her bank records, and if we don’t see the [AMLC] and BIR records,” Diokno said.
He cited the impeachment trial of former Chief Justice Renato Corona, where bank records predating his appointment were admitted as evidence.
The defense maintained its opposition, insisting prosecutors were trying to search for evidence only after filing the impeachment complaint.
Defense lawyer Michael Poa has described the request as an overly broad “fishing expedition,” arguing that it covered nearly two decades of financial records, including periods when Duterte was not yet an impeachable official. He also argued that confidentiality provisions governing tax and AMLC records contain no impeachment exception and warned that allowing the subpoenas would erode due process protections.
Escudero rejected those arguments, ruling that the requested records were sufficiently specific, material and directly related to the unexplained wealth allegations.
Marcoleta’s vote
Meanwhile, Escudero disclosed that detained Sen. Rodante Marcoleta had asked the impeachment court to count his vote despite his detention, citing a rule allegedly adopted during the impeachment trial of former President Joseph Estrada that allowed senators unable to vote in person to cast their votes.
Escudero said the request must first be resolved by the Senate as a legislative body because it would require amending the impeachment court’s rules.
Marcoleta is detained at the New Quezon City Jail while facing nonbailable plunder charges before the Sandiganbayan. —WITH REPORTS FROM GABRIEL PABICO LALU, AND ZACARIAN SARAO
Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.
/cb