Senate OKs Subpoena Of VP Tax, Bank Records

The Senate impeachment court granted on Monday, July 20, the request of the prosecution team of the House of Representatives to subpoena the bank and tax records of Vice President Sara Duterte and her husband Manases Carpio ahead of the court’s deliberation on her alleged unexplained wealth.

Presiding officer Sen. Francis Escudero read the ruling before the prosecution and defense panels.

“After a careful examination of the records requested, the court finds that the requested documents meet the requirements set forth. They are reasonably described, readily identifiable and prima facie relevant and material to the allegations under Article II,” Escudero said.

There is precedent during the 2012 impeachment trial of the late chief justice Renato Corona in allowing bank records to be presented before the court, Escudero said.

The Bank Secrecy Law exempts impeachment cases from the rule on confidentiality of bank records and privacy rights of depositors, he added.

Escudero also found no merit in the defense panel’s contention that the bank and tax records of the Vice President before she became an impeachable officer or held a public position should be excluded.

He assured the Vice President that the court will not allow the requested documents to be used as evidence for additional impeachable offenses.

The documents are important to establish the “factual baseline” in the prosecution’s bid to prove that the Vice President’s net worth is disproportionate to her income, he pointed out.

“The documents requested under the subpoena duces tecum will not be used to allege additional independent impeachable offenses. The court will not allow this… Rather, the court will only allow these records to 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,” Escudero said.

The requested documents should be limited to the prosecution’s case of unexplained wealth, he stressed.

“The production of records from 2007 to 2021 is therefore authorized strictly for that limited purpose. Their admissibility and evidentiary use shall remain subject to the prosecution establishing their connection to the alleged unexplained wealth during the respondent’s present term in relation to Article II of the Articles of Impeachment,” Escudero said.

VP’s husband covered

Escudero also thumbed down the defense panel’s contention that the records of the Vice President’s husband should be excluded.

He said the Family Code and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees mandate that public officials disclose their assets with their spouses and that a married person’s wealth should also include that of his or her spouse’s.

“Their financial interests are therefore statutorily intertwined for purposes of disclosure… 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,” Escudero said.

“Investigating Mr. 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,” he added.

The impeachment court also summoned BIR Commissioner Charlito Mendoza to appear before the clerk of court with the requested BIR documents on July 30.

Escudero said the 2012 Corona trial also served as a precedent when the court summoned then revenue commissioner Kim Henares, who brought Corona’s income tax returns upon the authorization of then president Noynoy Aquino as mandated by the National Internal Revenue Code.

As for the prosecution’s request to subpoena pertinent documents on 21 corporate entities and partnership tied to the Duterte couple, Escudero said the court is only granting those for 19.

The court excluded two firms – the JTC Group of Companies and Pikimong Pikimong Philippines Corp. – because the companies’ general information sheet did not name the Vice President and her husband as shareholders.

“The prosecution, at this time, failed to show either a direct business interest or a clear and convincing basis to disregard their separate juridical personalities,” Escudero said.

Dollar accounts

The court also clarified that only Philippine peso-denominated bank accounts would be allowed for scrutiny.

Escudero said this is because the Foreign Currency Deposit Act which governs such accounts mandate that these can only be disclosed upon the written permission of the depositor.

The court also granted the subpoena on the suspicious transaction reports done by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) on the Duterte bank accounts and related firms.

While the defense argued that the Anti-Money Laundering Act has strict confidentiality provisions, Escudero said the law “does not, and constitutionally cannot, nullify the lawful subpoena powers of the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.”

“It is the position of this court, that if the Sandiganbayan pursuant to its subpoena powers cannot be denied of AMLC records, as well as the legislature in aid of legislation, it most certainly cannot be denied to the Senate sitting as an impeachment court,” Escudero said.

Earlier during oral argument on Monday, prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno defended their request for bank and tax records of Duterte and her husband.

“Our belief is that confidentiality cannot trump accountability,” he told Sen. Pia Cayetano, who claimed that collecting such financial documents may end up for naught since these may all turn out to be inadmissible as evidence.

“A subpoena issued by this impeachment court for the purpose of determining accountability is based on the power that is expressly given by the Constitution. Section 8-A of the Anti-Money Laundering law is really intended to prohibit or prevent leaks by officials of the AMLC,” he said.

“If we are to check on our jurisprudence regarding unexplained wealth, it is very clear that no less than the SC declared that we have to look at the overall picture – and not just the SALNs that have been filed by a public servant – in finding out how much he amassed,” Diokno argued.

Meanwhile, former Senate president Franklin Drilon expressed belief the public is getting impatient with the “very tedious” impeachment proceedings.

“It’s getting to be very technical to the point that the patience of the people is getting tested,” Drilon said in an interview with “Storycon” on One News.

“I sat in two impeachment charges, I am a lawyer, but I find the proceedings very tedious. I can imagine the others who are witnessing this for the first time,” he added.

Drilon said an impeachment trial should not be bogged down by technicalities, saying its objective is to find whether the impeached official is fit to continue holding office.

“They wasted time arguing about an issue that should not be taken up in the impeachment court,” he pointed out. — With Delon Porcalla, Janvic Mateo