Senate previously summoned tax, bank docs for impeachment trial - Diokno

MANILA, Philippines — Akbayan party-list Rep. Chel Diokno has argued that it is not the first time that the Senate impeachment court will be asked to summon tax and bank records of an accused official, since it also subpoenaed such documents during the trial of then-Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona.

During the impeachment court’s oral arguments regarding the request to subpoena the bank and tax records of Vice President Sara Duterte, Diokno — a member of the House of Representatives prosecution team — said that the Court then admitted Corona’s tax records as evidence.

Diokno noted that members of the present impeachment court, like presiding officer and Senator-judge Francis Escudero, were among those who asked whether evidence that predates Corona’s term as Chief Justice will be admitted.

Article continues after this advertisement

“From what I have gathered and read, your Honors, please, this is not the first time this Court has been confronted with this issue.  During the impeachment trial of former Chief Justice Renato Corona, this Court accepted as evidence documents gathered that pertains to a time when he was not yet chief justice,” Diokno said partly in Filipino.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

“I believe it was then senator-judge, now presiding officer, Francis Escudero who raised the question: Will the impeachment court consider only Corona’s acts as Chief Justice?  This, after observing that some exhibits pre-dated his appointment as Chief Justice.  The matter was taken up in caucus, after which this court decided to allow such evidence,” he added.

Diokno added that Senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano, argued that Corona’s bank records before he was a Chief Justice were important to the discussions of whether Corona committed impeachable offenses.

“When Philippine Saving Bank president Pascual Garcia III testified before this Court, in the same Corona trial, he refused to answer the question of then senator-judge Franklin Drilon on the starting balance of Corona’s two peso-denominated accounts;  but if I’m not mistaken, it was Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano who said that records of initial deposits are among the ‘opening documents’ that should have been brought to the impeachment court,” Diokno said.

“After reading the subpoena, Presiding Officer Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile held that Senator-judge Cayetano’s observation was correct.  During the same hearing, the presiding officer ordered the issuance of a subpoena to PSBank Katipunan branch manager Anabelle Tiongson, to bring all the bank records of Corona.  A few days later, the Impeachment Court denied the defense’s motion to quash the subpoena for the peso bank accounts of CJ Corona,” he added.

Article continues after this advertisement

On these grounds, Diokno said that Duterte’s bank and tax records from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), along with the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) reports against her, should be summoned.

“Eventually, this Court scrutinized the bank records of Chief Justice Corona, from his first balance before the time that he became a Chief Justice.  The panel of prosecutors respectfully submits that the subpoenas for the production of the bank records, AMLC documents and BIR documents of the Vice President and her husband are proper and should be issued by this Honorable Court,” said Diokno.

Article continues after this advertisement

“That’s why our request to the Court: Use your unique power and right to scrutinize the bank records, tax records, and AMLC reports regarding VP Sara and her husband.  In this manner, Your Honors, you will be able to decide on the case based on the whole truth — the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth — for the interest and welfare of the Filipino people,” he added.

There has been a debate on whether the box containing the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) documents of Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, should be opened.

During the House committee on justice’s hearings on the impeachment complaints against Duterte, lawmakers decided not to open the BIR box as it may not be the proper venue for the unveiling of such documents.

Instead, the panel kept the box sealed and sent it to the Senate.

However, during the pre-trial stage, members of the prosecution team revealed that Duterte’s lawyers “vehemently opposed” the opening of the BIR box, even if they were just trying to mark the evidence.

The prosecution intends to use the BIR documents to prove allegations under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment, which deals with claims that Duterte committed culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust when she amassed unexplained wealth manifestly disproportionate to her lawful income and earnings during her incumbency as a public official.

READ: Adiong: Fear only reason Duterte’s lawyers oppose opening of BIR box

Despite pressing the need for the BIR documents to be subpoenaed, the prosecution has repeatedly said that they believe their evidence is strong even without it, noting that the AMLC report is also available.

During the House committee on justice’s hearing last April 22, AMLC Executive Director Buenaventura confirmed that they saw covered and suspicious transactions made by Duterte and Carpio.

READ: AMLC confirms suspicious transactions made by Sara Duterte, kin

Later on, Mamamayang Liberal party-list Rep. Leila de Lima — who eventually became one of the public prosecutors — randomly picked 19 transactions posted in Senator Antonio Trillanes IV’s affidavit against Duterte.

READ: Trillanes vindicated: AMLC confirms Sara Duterte’s 18 transactions

De Lima asked if this would match the records at AMLC’s hand.  In response, Buenaventura said that 19 out of the 19 transactions identified by de Lima from the Trillanes affidavit were confirmed to be part of AMLC’s records. /gsg

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.