The Senate impeachment court’s ruling on whether to subpoena the bank and tax records of Vice President Sara Duterte in her ongoing impeachment trial was deferred after senator-judges asked for an extension to peruse the memoranda containing the opposing stances of the prosecution and the defense.

The decision was supposed to be handed down on the sixth day of the trial on Wednesday. However, after an hour and a half caucus, the consensus reached was to move the ruling on Monday, 20 June, to allow senator-judges to review further the extensive arguments submitted by both parties regarding the requested financial disclosures.

“The senator-judges agreed to study the matter further, given that not everyone has completed reading the memoranda submitted by the parties, and given that they want more time to examine the complicated issues involved in these two motions for the issuance of subpoenas,” Escudero said.

Each senator-judge would be given a maximum of 10 minutes to propound questions to the rival camps about the relevance of the disclosure of the financial records to the trial.

Lawyer Michael Poa, a former aide of Duterte, now spokesperson and a member of the defense, argued that the request of the prosecution to subpoena the bank and tax records of the VP must be denied. 

He hinged this on the grounds that the prosecution’s request is “fatally overbroad” as they ask the Senate impeachment court to compel Duterte’s bank records as far back as 2007, or almost two decades. 

Poa derided it as an “unlimited search” into Duterte’s financial history, which is not permitted by the law.

“In our legal system, it is not permitted to accuse now and then just look for proof later on. That is not due process work. We should not allow that,” Poa pointed out.

“To compel AMLC (Anti–Money Laundering Council) officials to disclose such information would be to compel them to violate the law,” he added.

Furthermore, he argued that the period in question does not cover the years that Duterte held an impeachable office because she was still a vice mayor of Davao City at the time.

'Bank secrecy, data privacy laws allow impeachment disclosure'

House prosecutor Chel Diokno, however, countered that there are specific provisions in the law that allow the disclosure of the financial records, particularly if compelled by the impeachment court. 

Under Section 2 of the Bank Secrecy Law (RA 1405), all deposits are considered absolutely confidential in nature except in cases of impeachment.

“There is no doubt. The impeachment court has the right to scrutinize VP Sara’s bank records,” Diokno responded.

Doubling down on his argument, the lawmaker contended that even the Data Privacy Act (RA 10173) “affirms that confidential information shall not apply should the information be needed pursuant to a subpoena fully issued.”

On the first day of the impeachment trial on 6 July, the Senate impeachment court returned the unsealed green box containing the income tax returns of the VP and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) as it was not entered as evidence during the pre-trial stage.

The contentious box was intended to be part of the evidence by the House prosecution to support allegations of Duterte’s alleged unexplained wealth and discrepancies in her statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth under Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment. 

It was the House justice panel that subpoenaed the documents in question at the height of the impeachment hearings in April, though they did not open them to prevent legal implications, such as violating privacy laws, given that Carpio is a private citizen.

House lawmakers deferred the disclosure to the Senate impeachment court. However, it met strong objections from the defense.

Under RA 8424, tax records are confidential and may be disclosed only under limited circumstances, such as during executive sessions conducted in aid of legislation or with the taxpayer’s written consent.

Because impeachment proceedings are not explicitly considered inquiries in aid of legislation, House prosecutors deferred the opening of the box during the trial.