House prosecutors scored a victory on Monday after the Senate impeachment court approved their request to subpoena the tax and bank records of Vice President Sara Duterte and her husband, Manases Carpio, as part of their evidence in her ongoing trial.
Also ordered to be presented were her records at the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC).
Senate presiding judge Francis Escudero read the court’s ruling 3 hours into the second day of oral arguments on the motion of prosecutors to subpoena Duterte’s bank and tax records for evidence when they tackle Article II of the articles of impeachment, which pertains to her alleged unexplained wealth.
Escudero ordered that all documents be submitted at 9 a.m. on July 30 and “strictly in camera” to him through the clerk of court “who shall review these documents privately before turning them over to the parties.”
This would “prevent the unwarranted exposure of sensitive AMLC methodologies,” he said.
The subpoenas directed to the concerned banking institutions covered 19 of 21 corporate entities linked to Duterte and her husband, “separately and jointly,” as well as “the partnership of Carpio and Lawyers, and the 19 listed corporate entities.”
Escudero made it clear that the subpoenas were only for the peso-denominated accounts.
The impeachment court granted the request to subpoena Duterte’s tax records with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and its chief, Charlito Martin R. Mendoza.
Oral arguments
During the oral arguments on Day 7 of the trial, Senators Alan Peter Cayetano and Pia Cayetano questioned whether the prosecutors’ bid to secure the bank and tax records of Duterte was what the defense team claimed to be a “fishing expedition” and a violation of due process for the Vice President.
Akbayan party-list Rep. Chel Diokno and lawyer Michael Poa stood by their respective statements made during the first oral arguments last week.
In its ruling, the court approved almost all of the House prosecution’s request and explained why the defense team’s arguments were not convincing.
On Duterte’s tax record request, the court held that these documents met the requirements, being “reasonably described, readily identifiable, and prima facie relevant and material to the allegations under Article II.
But it denied the prosecutors’ request for records of JTC Group of Companies Philippines Inc., and Pikimong Pikimong Philippines Corp. for failing “to establish a prima facie nexus between these entities and to either the respondent or Atty. Manases Carpio.”
It said the request failed to meet the requirement of “prima facie relevance” under Rule 21 of the rules of court. Moreover, the two business entities did not identify Duterte or her husband as shareholders in their general information sheets, the court said.
‘Financial baseline and capacity’
The court, though, granted the request for the tax records covering the period of 2007 to 2021, to establish Duterte’s “financial baseline and capacity,” and not to inquire into or prosecute alleged impeachable acts occurring outside the present articles of impeachment.”
Citing a precedent, Escudero pointed to the statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs) of the late Chief Justice Renato Corona, which were presented during his impeachment trial in 2012, including properties and transactions before he was appointed as associate justice.
“The court will only allow these records to be used to establish a factual baseline against the respondent’s assets, financial transactions, and business interests during her present term may be assessed,” he said.
He cited jurisprudence “involving allegations that a public officer’s wealth is manifestly disproportionate to the lawful income and financial capacity of the officer and the officer’s spouse.”
Still, the court upheld the defense team’s invocation of Section 71 and other provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), recognizing three instances in which a taxpayer’s records may be opened for inspection—upon the order of the President; upon the request of a foreign tax authority, with the approval of the President; and upon the taxpayer’s waiver.
“Nevertheless,” it said, “the existence of these statutory limitations does not, at this stage, preclude the issuance of the requested subpoena.”
“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,” the court said. It added: “In fact, this issuance is the order that shall set things in motion.”
The court noted that the BIR commissioner “may refuse compliance or comply by invoking any of the exceptions under NIRC, as previously mentioned.”
“Without a satisfactory showing of faithful compliance with any of the exceptions, this court shall not receive any subpoenaed records from the BIR, similar to what was done with the sealed green box ordered by this Court to be returned to them,” it said.
It was referring to its move during the pretrial to return the box containing the tax records of the Duterte couple to the BIR, which was in the custody of the House justice committee.
Corona impeachment trial
Citing the 2012 Corona impeachment trial, the court said the Senate then issued the subpoena and waited for the BIR commissioner’s return.
“The requested records were produced only after the requisite presidential authorization had been obtained, one of the recognized exceptions under Section 71 of the NIRC,” said the court.
In granting the subpoena for Duterte’s bank records, the court held that the requested documents met the requirements, as they “are reasonably described, readily identifiable, and prima facie relevant and material to the allegations under Article II.”
It again cited the impeachment trial of Corona, where the prosecution’s request “for the production of bank records” was granted. It cited Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1405, which expressly recognizes “cases of impeachment” as an exception to the confidentiality of bank deposits, and the right to privacy of depositors.
The court maintained that the bank records would be used to “establish a factual baseline against which the respondent’s assets, financial transactions, and business interests during her present term may be assessed” and not to introduce new impeachable offenses.
Citing a precedent, Escudero pointed to Corona’s SALNs which were presented during his impeachment trial in 2012, including properties and transactions before he was appointed associate justice.
As to the defense’s objection to include the bank records of Duterte’s husband, the court explained that “because Philippine civil law legally merges their assets, properties, and income into a single absolute community, it is a legal and mathematical impossibility to determine the respondent’s true net worth or lawful income without examining the bank accounts of her husband.
Investigating Carpio’s financial records “is therefore not an unwarranted intrusion into a third party’s privacy, but an absolute legal prerequisite to determining the actual, aggregated wealth of the respondent,” it said.
Written manifestations
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano said that while he agrees with some points of the ruling, there were also points he disagreed with. He said he would submit a written manifestation to the court.
Also submitting a written manifestation were Senators Imee Marcos, Loren Legarda and Camille Villar.
While saying she “submits to the ruling of the court,” Sen. Pia Cayetano said the court could have settled on a “middle ground” solution when it came to the House prosecution’s request to subpoena financial records of Duterte as early as 2007.
She said the court could have just allowed the subpoena of records from 2022 to 2026 “in the interest of considering the rights” of the Vice President.
Sen. Robinhood Padilla stood up to state his opposition to the court ruling. He cited the importance of applying the equal protection of law provision in the 1987 Constitution to everyone, including impeachable officials.
Padilla even challenged all senators to open their bank accounts to show to the people they were not biased to anyone. He also advocated for the passage of the Freedom of Information Act, still pending in his committee.
Meanwhile, the impeachment court referred to the Senate the request of Sen. Rodante Marcoleta to allow him to participate in the trial as it was the body that could amend the impeachment rules.
Marcoleta is currently detained as he awaits trial for the plunder case filed against him at the Sandiganbayan.
Also referred to the Senate for resolution was Padilla’s statement at the start of the impeachment trial denying he ignored Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla’s summons for him to explain the “escape” of Sen. Ronald dela Rosa on the Senate premises.
Padilla had earlier said he dropped off Dela Rosa somewhere in Makati City when the latter hitched a ride from the Senate last month.
Dela Rosa, who has an arrest warrant before the International Criminal Court for being a co-accused in the crimes against humanity case with former president Rodrigo Duterte, had surfaced in the Senate after months of hiding. CS
