The Senate impeachment court has deferred action on the request of House prosecutors to subpoena the bank and tax records of Vice President Sara Duterte in her impeachment trial, saying it will rule on the matter on Monday, July 20.
Impeachment court presiding officer Francis Escudero said the senator-judges decided on the postponement in a caucus on Wednesday, July 15, shortly after oral arguments on the prosecution panel’s motion to access Duterte’s financial records began.
It will tackle Article II of the articles of impeachment about her alleged amassing of illegal wealth next week.
“The senator-judges want more time to look into the complicated issues on the two motions. We agreed to decide on the matter on Monday,” Escudero said at the resumption of the session that was suspended for the caucus.
On Day 6 of the trial, public prosecutor and Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno and defense lawyer Michael Poa clashed over their respective positions on the prosecution panel’s motions: the issuance of subpoena duces tecum for the bank records, tax records, and the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) reports relating to Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio.
For Diokno, accessing these financial records was important “because truth has no confidentiality.” Poa claimed opening the confidential records amounts to a “fishing expedition.”
“The issue we are facing this afternoon is simple, but very heavy. Will we open the door to the truth, or will we block it?” Diokno said in his opening statement addressed in Filipino.
He said these documents will disclose the whole truth on their allegations against her in Article II of the articles of impeachment that she enriched herself beyond her salary and legitimate income; that she has properties undeclared in her statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN) from 2022 to 2025; and that she has businesses while being the Vice President, which the Constitution prohibits.
Diokno said the defense panel’s argument that the impeachment court has no power to examine the bank and tax records as well as the AMLC reports was “not only legally flawed, it is an affront to the authority” of the court.
‘Extraordinary powers’
The 1987 Constitution, he said, vested the impeachment court with “extraordinary powers” in that it has the only authority to decide whether the country’s top officials have the right to serve.
As such, Diokno said: “No one, no person, no law, and no administrative rule—can limit or supersede it.”
He noted that the Bank Secrecy Law complies with the impeachment court, citing a provision in the law that said, “all deposits…are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature…except in…cases of impeachment.”
The Data Privacy Act is also no obstacle on the impeachment court’s right and power to subpoena these documents, according to Diokno, who noted that the law “affirms that confidentiality shall not apply…should the personal information be needed pursuant to a subpoena duly issued.”
He shrugged off the defense’s contention that Duterte’s financial records were “irrelevant,” particularly those transactions that happened before she became vice president. On the contrary, he said, Duterte’s past financial activity as mayor and vice mayor of Davao City was related to whether she is fit to serve as vice president.
Corona case
Diokno noted that the impeachment court during the trial of the late Chief Justice Renato Corona had accepted evidence before he served in the highest court.
“I believe it was then senator-judge, now presiding officer, Francis Escudero who raised this question—will the impeachment court consider only Corona’s acts as Chief Justice?” he said.
Citing the case of Philippine Savings Bank president Pascual Garcia III’s refusal to reply to a query by then senator-judge Franklin Drilon on the starting balance of Corona’s two peso-denominated accounts, he said then senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano said “records of initial deposits are among the opening documents that should have been brought to the impeachment court.”
Cayetano’s observation was deemed correct by then presiding officer Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile.
Diokno said the impeachment court examined the bank records of Corona, from his initial balance before he took the top Supreme Court position.
For his part, Poa insisted the issue at hand was not whether the impeachment court has the power to issue a subpoena, but “whether such power may be exercised in a manner that disregards due process and compels the production of documents and information beyond what is allowed by law.”
House complaints
Poa said that in the case of Duterte vs House of Representatives, the Supreme Court held that “the Bill of Rights, especially the due process clause, applies in all stages of the impeachment process.”
He said the Saballa and Cabrera complaints, which accused Duterte of amassing illegal wealth, did not attach a document—“not a single financial transaction record, not even a single SALN” to support their accusations.
Poa said when these complaints were filed in the House, the justice committee began searching for evidence by issuing subpoenas.
“Your honors, in our legal system, it is not permitted to accuse now and then just look for proof later on. That is not how due process works. We should not allow this,” he said.
Citing Duterte vs the House of Representatives again, Poa said the prosecution’s request for subpoenas was “fatally overbroad” given that “an impeachable offense is an act or omission committed while the public is occupying an impeachable office, not before being elected or appointed to such position.” He called this ruling “controlling and the law of the land.”
Poa noted that Congress had enacted laws that prohibit the disclosure of information the prosecution is seeking, such as the Anti-Money Laundering Act (Section 8-A, which prohibits disclosure of these documents), Bank Secrecy Law, and the tax code.
He asked the impeachment court not to allow a “fishing expedition.”
“The prosecution has repeatedly invoked accountability…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,” he added.
Real issue
Rebutting Poa’s arguments, Diokno said the real issue was whether the subpoenas “actually deprive the respondent of any form of due process,” and he believed this was not the case.
He said the defense panel could object when the time comes the documents are identified by a witness and offered in evidence. “Therefore,” he added, “there is no due process violation in issuing a subpoena.”
Diokno said the defense panel’s use of the Duterte vs House of Representatives was “mere obiter dicta,” or just a side comment of the Supreme Court. He explained that the high court decision stated that it was “speaking of due process in relation to how these proceedings reach this Senate as an impeachment court, not this kind of procedure.”
On the prosecution allegedly engaging in a fishing expedition, he said the high court, in the Republic vs Rabusa unexplained wealth case, did not agree with the Court of Appeals’ argument that the request of prosecutors for the production of bank records was a fishing expedition.
On the defense panel’s citation of several laws that the documents requested by the prosecution are confidential, Diokno made it clear anew that the Constitution held that the impeachment court has “sole, exclusive power to determine an impeachable offense, and that included the power to find out, ferret out the entire truth, and make your decision on that basis.”
“Confidentialty, your honor, should not be the prevailing principle in this proceeding. The truth is not confidential,” Diokno said.
In response to Diokno’s rebuttal, Poa maintained their positions. “We do not disagree on the terms of accountability, but no one should be deprived of protection given by law,” he stated.
More witnesses dropped
Upon the resumption of the trial, House lead prosecutor and Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro said they will no longer call to the witness stand on Tuesday a representative of the Philippine National Police Firearms and Explosives Office, journalists Mikhail Flores and Bonz Magsambol, Sheriff Abe Andres, a relative of one of the victims of alleged threats, and a psychiatrist.
Luistro said they deemed it unnecessary to present the journalists after a review of the testimonies and evidence provided by their two earlier witnesses that established the authenticity of the videos where Duterte had disclosed she spoke to someone to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, first lady Liza Marcos-Araneta and former House speaker Martin Romualdez if she ends up dead.
Luistro said Director Melvin Matibay of the National Bureau of Investigation will be their last witness on July 21 as the panel ends their presentation of the grave threats allegations in the second articles of impeachment.
Luistro sought from Escudero the issuance of subpoenas for three witnesses who will testify on the misuse of confidential funds by Duterte, which falls under the first articles of impeachment.
These are Marivic Pareja of the Legislative Archives and Museum Management Service of the House of Representatives, and two LandBank employees—Violeta Constantino, former bank manager of the LandBank Shaw Boulevard branch, and Nenita Camposano, former branch manager of the Department of Education branch. CS
Read more: House prosecutors drop VP chief of staff, another as impeachment trial witnesses
