Prosecution, defense clash over VP’s bank, tax records

Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero as presiding officer of the impeachment court —File photo

MANILA, Philippines — The Senate impeachment court on Wednesday deferred its decision on whether to subpoena the bank and tax records of Vice President Sara Duterte, as the prosecution and defense panels in the impeachment trial debated whether accountability or confidentiality should prevail.

Impeachment court presiding officer Sen. Francis Escudero gave senator-judges until Monday, July 20, to study what he called “complicated” issues raised by both parties.

Article continues after this advertisement

“The senator-judges agreed to study the matter more, given that not everyone has actually completed reading the memoranda given […] and submitted by the parties,” Escudero said. “[T]hey want more time to look into the complicated issues involved in these two motions for the issuance of subpoena; the senator-judges agreed in caucus to decide on the matter on Monday.”

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

The court’s decision followed an oral argument between the prosecution and defense over whether the court has the authority to scrutinize a green cardboard box containing the tax records of Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, that the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) submitted to the House committee on justice when it initially heard the impeachment charges.

READ: Early look at VP Duterte’s tax, bank docs will avoid trial delay – Tolosa

‘Fishing expedition’

Defense lawyer Michael Poa urged the court to reject the House prosecution panel’s request to issue subpoenas, which he criticized as a “fishing expedition” made in the hope of discovering incriminating material. He said granting the request would violate due process, privacy rights, and statutory confidentiality.

“When a subpoena becomes oppressive, unreasonable and merely issued for the very purpose that is a hope that somewhere, somehow, something incriminating will come out, it ceases to be an instrument of justice, it becomes a weapon of fishing expedition,” Poa said.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: Sara Duterte’s tax records arrive at BIR

He also argued that the prosecution failed to attach supporting financial documents when the impeachment complaints were initially filed, accusing it of jumping the gun.

Article continues after this advertisement

“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,” he told the court.

The defense also contested the relevance of the requested documents, which span nearly two decades and date as far back as 2007, when Duterte was still Davao City’s vice mayor—a nonimpeachable office. Citing Supreme Court jurisprudence, he argued that an impeachable offense must be committed while the official is actively occupying the impeachable post.

A search spanning nearly 20 years of preterm, local government service history is irrelevant to her current vice presidency, “overbroad,” and violates her right to privacy, he said.

He further noted that compelling the Anti-Money Laundering Council and the BIR to disclose the Vice President’s records would force government officials to violate the law.

He also criticized the prosecution for requesting to subpoena the bank records of Carpio, a private citizen who should be outside the scope of any impeachment proceedings.

“[T]he 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,” said Poa.

Corona case a precedent

Impeachment prosecutors, on the other hand, argued that the documents would reveal Duterte’s financial standing, and that it was within the court’s power to compel and follow precedent from a previous impeachment trial.

Akbayan party-list Rep. Chel Diokno told the court that Duterte and her spouse’s tax and bank documents are vital to exposing the true state of her finances, a key element of the impeachment case, and would help senator-judges assess her fitness for office and whether her wealth was lawfully acquired.

“The prosecution’s request is to expose the whole truth, so that this court may know the truth … and make its decision based on that,” he said. “Are we going to open the door of truth, or block it?”

He said bank accounts of high officials facing impeachment are not covered by the bank secrecy law’s confidentiality provisions.

He also argued that Duterte’s tax and bank records could be examined in open court despite the Data Privacy Act, noting the law does not apply to “personal information” produced under subpoena. “It was never intended to short-circuit the impeachment process,” he said.

Diokno pointed out that there was precedent for admitting Duterte’s bank records from before she became an impeachable official, citing the impeachment case of former Chief Justice Renato Corona.

“This court scrutinized the bank records of Chief Justice Corona from his first balance before he became a magistrate,” he said.

Diokno added that Duterte’s bank records “increased significantly” in 2007, with transactions that year rising to P208.15 million. He added that financial movements intensified between 2009 and 2013, with annual totals consistently exceeding P400 million.

Transaction peaks

He said “notable peaks” in Duterte’s transactions included P704.93 million in 2009, P648.58 million in 2010 and P597.15 million in 2011. Duterte served as vice mayor of Davao City from 2007 to 2010, and its mayor from 2010 to 2013.

“For this honorable court to determine whether Vice President Sara Duterte is unfit to continue in office, it must have a clear picture of the respondent as a public servant,” Diokno said.

“Confidentiality … should not be the prevailing principle in this proceeding. The truth is not confidential,” he added.

Following the oral arguments, the senator-judges held a caucus to discuss the motions seeking the issuance of the subpoenas.

Before proceeding with the caucus, Escudero acknowledged the civilized oral arguments between Diokno and Poa.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

“I commend both sides for a calm, mellow, courteous, and respectful discourse and debate regarding this issue, which we can consider controversial,” he said. “I expect the same to happen during the caucus.” /cb