Prosecution Wants Sara Duterte’s Tax, Bank Records Opened; 11 Votes Needed To Grant Request

On the sixth day of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, prosecutors officially asked the impeachment court to subpoena her bank and tax records to back allegations that she has illegally amassed wealth.

The Senate impeachment court will vote on the prosecution’s request on Monday, July 20. It will need at least 11 votes of 21 senators to get it approved.

Also being sought by the prosecution are the tax and bank records of Duterte’s husband Manases Carpio.

Presiding officer Sen. Francis Escudero also granted on Wednesday, July 15, the prosecution’s request to subpoena two Land Bank of the Philippines employees and a House of Representatives official in preparation for deliberations on Article I on the misuse of confidential funds.

During oral arguments on Wednesday, House prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno contended that it is within the power of the impeachment court to look into Duterte’s financial records.

“This power comes directly from the Constitution. No one – no person, no law and no administrative rule – can limit or supersede it. Nothing and no one can handcuff this Court’s power to try and decide this impeachment case,” Diokno told the court.

“That’s why it’s our wish for this court to use its unique power and right to examine bank records, tax records and SALN (statement of assets, liabilities and net worth) of VP sara and her husband,” he said.

“This way, you can decide based on the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth – for the interest and welfare of the Filipino people,” Diokno pointed out.

Diokno related how the Senate, during the impeachment trial of then chief justice Renato Corona, issued a subpoena on his bank records and allowed them to be entered as evidence.

He even pointed out how it was Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano then who argued that Corona’s records of initial deposits should be presented before the court.

Diokno argued that confidentiality laws should not be invoked prematurely to prevent the senators from obtaining records that may ultimately confirm or disprove the allegations against the Vice President.

“It is easy to say that an information is confidential, it’s easy to invoke a law. But what the impeachment court would be seeking today, in the coming days, in the coming weeks is the truth and accountability,” he said.

“Confidentiality should not be the prevailing principle in this proceeding. Truth is not confidential,” he maintained.

Exception

Diokno argued that even the Bank Secrecy Law recognizes impeachment proceedings as an exception to the confidentiality of bank deposits, as it provides that “all deposits are considered as of an absolute confidential nature except in cases of impeachment.”

The Data Privacy Law also does not bar the issuance of subpoenas in impeachment proceedings as the law recognizes the disclosure of personal information subpoenaed.

He also argued that the confidentiality provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) are not meant to prevent the court from obtaining the AMLC records of Duterte, saying the provisions were enacted to protect the integrity of money laundering investigations – not to prevent a constitutionally created impeachment court from performing its duty.

“It was not designed to short-circuit impeachment proceedings or prevent the impeachment court from ascertaining the truth,” he said.

Diokno pointed out that the financial records of Duterte from 2007 to 2025, which cover her years as Davao City vice mayor and mayor, are relevant to the impeachment case. He cited an AMLC report that showed that the Vice President’s financial activity “increased significantly” starting 2007, when transaction values surged to P208.15 million.

Diokno further cited AMLC records showing Duterte’s financial activity exceeding P3 billion from 2007 to 2013.

“The Vice President’s financial activity as vice mayor and mayor of Davao City relates directly to the main fact in issue in this case: her fitness or unfitness to serve as Vice President,” he said.

The prosecution also rejected the claim that the issuance of subpoenas would violate Duterte’s right to due process, as Diokno explained that the prosecution is merely asking the Senate to order the production of documents that had yet to be identified by witnesses or formally offered as evidence.

‘Second envelope’

Before the start of the trial, House prosecution panel spokesperson Renee Co also urged the impeachment court to allow access to the bank and tax records of Duterte and her husband – or there might be a repeat of the “second envelope” controversy that marred the impeachment trial of former president Joseph Estrada in 2001.

“We expect the Senate impeachment court to decide on opening the bank and tax records,” Co told The Philippine STAR before the hearing.

During Estrada’s impeachment trial, the senators’ negative vote on the opening of the second envelope triggered a walkout and later a street protest that led to Estrada’s ouster.

“In our history, there was an envelope that was not opened. I hope that will not happen again. Let’s open the box and find out the truth,” Co said.

To be issued subpoena in relation to Duterte’s confidential fund misuse were Legislative Archives and Museum Management Service chief Marivic Pareja; Violeta Constantino, Landbank branch manager, Shaw Blvd. and Nenita Camposano, Landbank branch manager Department of Education.

Also on Wednesday, lead prosecutor Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro announced that six more witnesses for the fourth Article of Impeachment or grave threat would no longer be summoned.

In a manifestation, Luistro said they will no longer call to the witness stand a representative from the Philippine National Police Firearms and Explosives Office, two journalists, a sheriff, a family member of a victim of threats and a psychiatrist.

With this, Luistro said National Bureau of Investigation Director Melvin Matibag will be the last prosecution witness for Article 4. He is scheduled to take the witness stand on July 21.

At a briefing, Palace press officer Claire Castro said the Vice President’s kill threat on President Marcos was not just a grave threat, but a matter of national security.

“It was actually not just a threat because there was a conversation with someone who is ready to kill... It is not a simple grave threat that can be filed before the court. It does not involve ordinary people. We are talking about the President. It is an issue about national security,” Castro said. – With Mark Ernest Villeza, Alexis Romero