With the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte set to resume on Monday, 20 July, House private prosecutor Atty. Jay Tolosa said that the prosecution team has remained hopeful that their request for subpoenas would be granted at the Senate impeachment court.

Similar to the sentiments of his fellow prosecutors, Tolosa maintained that their petition had sufficient legal grounding when it came to statutory law, noting that such precedent was even established during the impeachment against the late Chief Justice Renato Corona.

“We are hoping that it gets granted because we have a strong basis for our request to subpoena these documents,” the lawyer said in a radio interview.

“Impeachment is an exception to bank secrecy laws. It is clear, specified, when it comes to impeachment proceedings, it is allowed,” he explained.

The particular provision under the bank secrecy law that Tolosa referenced was indicated in Section 2 of the law, where it explicitly cites impeachment as one of the exemptions to the “absolutely confidential nature” of bank records from all institutions in the Philippines.

Notably, aside from bank records, the prosecutors have also sought for subpoenas to be issued on the tax records and the reports of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) on the shared accounts of the Vice President and her husband, Atty. Manases “Mans” Carpio.

While laws are direct when it comes to the non-disclosure of tax information under the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) unless approved by the President, Tolosa mentioned that the Anti-Money Laundering Act’s (AMLA) guidelines do not prevent presentation.

He mentioned that AMLA did not deem its reports confidential, with the AMLC even being allowed to share its findings to foreign agencies in particular circumstances.

Dwelling on the possibility that the Senate would ultimately deny their request, Tolosa affirmed that their case, when it came to the impeachment article on unexplained wealth, would not necessarily collapse given that they had supplementary documents and testimonies that could establish their case.

Even then, however, he said that the prosecutors were keen on pushing for the subpoenas.

“The articles of impeachment are not dependent on one particular evidence…but even then, we will continue to fight for the presentation of these documents,” he said.

Tolosa explained that the primary reason for the subpoenas on documents such as bank records and income tax returns (ITR) was to give both the public and the Senate a chance to see the evident disparity between Duterte’s actual net worth and what she declared on her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN).

To recall, it was revealed during the hearings conducted under the House Committee on Justice that the Vice President did not properly declare her cash on hand and cash in bank from 2019 to 2024 despite noting that her net worth was as high as P88.5 million.

During the same proceedings, the AMLC reports showed that the accounts of Duterte and Carpio had transactions amounting to P6.7 billion in suspicious and covered transactions from a period of 2005 to 2026.

Transactions that are deemed “covered” and “suspicious” under the money laundering watchdog are those that exceed P500,000 while also taking into consideration transactions that are intentionally made to fall below the threshold to avoid detection.

Even with the revelations, the defense camp of the Vice President has maintained their vehement opposition to the request, citing that the matter fed to the “fishing expedition” narrative as the evidence that the Vice President was being prosecuted on were not included in the complaints.

For Tolosa, the continued opposition of the group to the presentation was a mere indication that there was an attempt to hide evidence that was incriminatory in nature.

“The fact that they are really attempting to stop the disclosure of these documents raises a big question in our eyes,” he said.

Final witness for grave threats

On Wednesday, 15 July, House prosecutor Rep. Gerville Luistro said that they were going to be presenting one last witness for their case when it came to the verbal threats of Duterte towards high-ranking public officials.

Luistro identified the witness as National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Atty. Melvin Matibag, a testimony that would attempt to give substance to the allegations that the Vice President had contracted an assassin to carry out her threats.

Tolosa explained that Matibag’s testimony was going to be important for their case given that their first two witnesses, who were also agents of the NBI, mentioned that questions surrounding the supposed killer were outside their scope.

“That is where NBI Director Melvin Matibag will step in. He will be the one who would give clarity on the thorough investigation that the NBI conducted on the assassin that the Vice President talked to,” the lawyer said.

Even without the existence of an assassin, however, Tolosa stressed that their case concerning the fourth article of impeachment could still stand.

He said that their main argument rested on the fact that utterances were made, and that such statements were in itself an impeachable offense.

“It is important that she had carried out threats that were against the law, and what she said she was out to do is an unlawful act and produced an effect that instilled fear in the people she threatened,” Tolosa said.

The case stems from the utterances that the Vice President had during an online press conference on 23 November 2024 wherein she said she communicated an assassin to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., first lady Liza Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez–a matter that the defense argued was conditional.