Prosecutors push Sara tax record subpoenas
According to Tolosa, the records would allow senators and the public to compare Duterte’s declared assets with her actual financial transactions.
PHOTOGRAPH by Aram Lascano for DAILY TRIBUNE
Daily TribuneAccording to Tolosa, the records would allow senators and the public to compare Duterte’s declared assets with her actual financial transactions.
PHOTOGRAPH by Aram Lascano for DAILY TRIBUNE
House prosecutors expressed confidence that the Senate impeachment court would grant their request for subpoenas when Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial resumes Monday, saying the documents are crucial to proving allegations of unexplained wealth.
Private prosecutor Jay Tolosa on Sunday said the request is supported by law and jurisprudence, citing the impeachment trial of the late Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona.
“We are hopeful because we have a strong legal basis for requesting these documents,” Tolosa said in a radio interview.
He said impeachment proceedings are expressly exempt from the Bank Secrecy Law, allowing bank records to be subpoenaed.
Aside from bank documents, prosecutors are seeking Duterte’s income tax returns and reports from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) involving accounts jointly held by the Vice President and her husband, lawyer Manases “Mans” Carpio.
Tolosa said the Anti-Money Laundering Act does not prohibit the presentation of AMLC reports in impeachment proceedings.
‘Fishing expedition’
Even if the Senate rejects the subpoena requests, he said the prosecution’s case would not collapse because it has other documentary and testimonial evidence.
“The articles of impeachment do not depend on a single piece of evidence, but we will continue to fight for the disclosure of these documents,” he said.
According to Tolosa, the records would allow senators and the public to compare Duterte’s declared assets with her actual financial transactions.
Defense lawyer Michael Poa characterized the prosecution’s plea to open Duterte’s financial records as a “fishing expedition,” saying the evidence sought is not specifically identified in the articles of impeachment.
Tolosa rejected that argument.
“Their persistent effort to block the disclosure of these documents raises serious questions for us,” he said.
Prosecutors have cited findings presented during House hearings alleging Duterte failed to fully declare her cash on hand and bank deposits from 2019 to 2024 despite reporting a net worth of as much as P88.5 million.
They also referenced AMLC reports showing that accounts linked to Duterte and Carpio allegedly recorded P6.7 billion in covered and suspicious transactions from 2005 to 2026.
Matibag on deck
At Monday’s trial, prosecutors are expected to present National Bureau of Investigation Director Melvin Matibag as a witness on the impeachment article involving Duterte’s alleged threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
Tolosa said Matibag would testify on the NBI’s investigation into Duterte’s statement during a 23 November 2024, online briefing that she had arranged for an assassin to kill the three officials if she herself were killed.
He said the prosecution would pursue the impeachment article even if no assassin is identified, arguing that Duterte’s public statements themselves constitute an impeachable offense.
Meanwhile, constitutional law expert Mel Sta. Maria said the Senate impeachment court is not legally barred from examining Duterte’s actions before she became vice president.
Sta. Maria cited Article XI of the Constitution, which states that public office is a public trust and that public officials “must, at all times, be accountable to the people.”
“The phrase ‘must, at all times’ does not mean only during the current term or only during the vice presidency,” he said.
Reaching back
Duterte’s defense has argued that impeachment covers only acts committed while an official occupies an impeachable office.
Poa cited the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Duterte v. House of Representatives, arguing that prosecutors cannot seek records dating back to Duterte’s service as Davao vice mayor.
Sta. Maria disagreed, saying the Constitution identifies impeachable officials and grounds for removal but does not limit evidence to conduct during an official’s current term.
He added that an impeachment court may consider earlier acts if they establish a continuing pattern relevant to allegations of betrayal of public trust.