Amid renewed discussions over the alleged “fishing expedition” conducted by the House Committee on Justice in gathering evidence for the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte, a lawmaker said it was time to put the issue to rest and move on with the trial.

House Public Prosecutor Rep. Joel Chua addressed one of the points raised by defense lawyer Atty. Michael Poa during oral arguments on the issuance of subpoenas for bank statements, tax records and reports from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC).

Chua said attempts to revive discussions that such documents were not indicated in the complaints initially lodged before the House Committee on Justice were unnecessary, given that the matter had already been settled and the impeachment trial had commenced in the Senate.

“Talks about the complaint are finished, we are in the hearing proper, the complaint has nothing to do with this anymore, and, in fact, it was included in the pre-trial brief, that’s why perhaps discussions about the complaint should be finished so let’s move on,” he said during a press conference.

On Wednesday, July 16, Poa explained that the defense's opposition to the issuance of subpoenas for documents pertaining to the finances of the Vice President and her husband, Atty. Manases “Mans” Carpio, was not a matter of questioning the court's authority to exercise its powers.

The defense lawyer said the issue instead was whether such powers were being exercised in a manner that did not undermine due process, despite the fact that impeachment is considered sui generis under Philippine law.

“Issued for the very purpose that there is a hope that somewhere, somehow, something incriminating will come out, it ceases to be an instrument of justice. It becomes a weapon of a fishing expedition,” he explained.

House private prosecutor Atty. Lorna Kapunan, however, said the point Poa attempted to establish was already “moot” and “academic,” given that the prosecution's requested documents were listed in its submitted pre-trial brief as part of its reserved evidence for trial.

Kapunan noted that the primary purpose of identifying such documents during the pre-trial stage was that failure to include them would bar their presentation during the trial.

“These bank documents, these are not a surprise…it is inaccurate to state that it was not mentioned in the complaint,” she said.

“In a complaint, only ultimate facts are placed, not evidence, evidence is a matter for the court,” she added.

Seeking the president's authorization

Another issue facing the prosecution, should the tax records of Duterte and Carpio be subpoenaed, concerns the strict provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).

Under Section 270 of the NIRC, employees of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) are prohibited from disclosing taxpayer information, even in the course of performing their official duties.

The only exception under the law is found in Section 71, which authorizes the President of the Philippines to allow the inspection of any individual's income tax returns.

Asked whether the prosecution would pursue such a measure, Chua said the panel would first explore all available options, noting that it did not want to unnecessarily involve the executive branch.

“As much as we can, we don’t want to disturb the executive when it comes to this because our President is busy with a lot of tasks,” he said.

It was established Wednesday that the Senate impeachment court is set to decide the issue on Monday, July 20, after Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero said senator-judges would be allowed to question both the prosecution and the defense on the matter.