A lawyer from the camp of Atty. Manases Carpio stated that the complaint it filed at the Office of the City Prosecutor in Quezon City (OCP-QC) concerning the alleged illegal disclosure of the Anti-Money Laundering Council’s (AMLC) records was not meant to impede the impeachment process of Vice President Sara Duterte.

Speaking on behalf of Carpio, Atty. Neil Abayon stated that the complaint was merely meant to seek justice for the supposed unlawful presentation and involvement of a private individual in a government matter.

“Hindi siya directly affecting the impeachment, so yung mga directly affecting cases kasi yan yung mga injunction, temporary restraining order. This does not aim to do that, but rather para lang maging liable yung mga may ginawang criminal act which is yung illegal disclosure,” Abayon said.

The lawyer along with legal teams of the respondents in the case were present at the OCP-QC for another hearing that would determine if the case would be recommended for trial under the City’s Hall of Justice.

Abayon said that they had previously submitted an addendum to attach the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Insurance Commission (IC) among the accused in the case.

Originally, the complaint tagged Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Governor Eli Romolona, Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) Director Ronel Buenaventura, Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro, Mamamayang Liberal Rep. Leila de Lima, and Akbayan Reps. Chel Diokno and Perci Cendana as the principal respondents in the case.

Both SEC and IC were added later on through an addendum as Abayon explained that the agencies were involved in the approval process of the AMLC report that was presented before the House Committee on Justice.

To recall, the supposed report tackled the covered bank transactions of both Duterte and Carpio from 2006 to 2025 which totaled P6.77 billion.

Notably, the transactions that the AMLC tracks are those which include the inflow and outflow of funds amounting to more than P500,000.

The husband of the Vice President claimed that the disclosure of the said amounts was not legal based on the provisions of AMLA that does not provide any exemptions to divulge bank information.