Lawmakers involved in the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte insisted they would not be intimidated after appearing at a preliminary investigation into a complaint tied to the alleged disclosure of bank records linked to Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio.
Mamamayang Liberal Partylist Rep. Leila de Lima said the complaint filed by Carpio was an attempt to divert public attention from the impeachment case against the vice president and to pressure lawmakers participating in the constitutional process.
She maintained that the case would eventually be dismissed and stressed that she was prepared to confront the allegations directly.
De Lima expressed confidence that the case filed by Carpio would be junked.
“Kompiyansa tayo na mababasura ang kasong ito. Hindi tayo maduduwag na harapin ito dahil wala naman tayong nilalabag na batas. Wala tayong pinagtatakpan. Wala tayong itinatago (we arę confident that this case will be junked. We will not be cowards to face this because we did not violate the law. We are not covering up. We are not hiding anything),” De Lima said.
De Lima also recalled facing what she described as fabricated charges in the past, saying those cases were likewise intended to silence her.
“Hindi ako pasisindak. Hindi ko ito uurungan (I will not be intimidated),” she added.
De Lima and Akbayan Partylist Chel Diokno earlier attended the preliminary investigation of the complaint filed by Carpio over the alleged release of information involving P6.77 billion worth of bank transactions tied to him and Duterte.
The report in question had been submitted by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) to the House Committee on Justice after lawmakers issued a subpoena during hearings related to the impeachment complaints against Duterte.
“As public servants, it is our duty to respect the process. We are confident that we have not violated any law, and we only performed our duty in accordance with the Constitution,” Diokno said.
Carpio alleged that the submission of the AMLC report violated the Anti-Money Laundering Act, bank secrecy laws, and the Data Privacy Act.
He argued that details involving his financial transactions, including insurance payments, time deposits, investments, and utility bills, should remain confidential.
