Four senator-judges are moving to challenge the Senate impeachment court’s decision to compel access to Vice President Sara Duterte’s financial records.

The impeachment court earlier granted the House prosecution panel’s request to subpoena Duterte’s financial documents, including records involving her husband, Manases Carpio, and some businesses linked to them. 

Prosecutors said the documents were needed to support allegations of unexplained wealth under the impeachment complaint.

During Monday’s proceedings, Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano questioned prosecutor Chel Diokno on whether the court could consider acts or financial information from before Duterte became vice president, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Duterte v. House of Representatives.

Diokno maintained that the Supreme Court’s discussion on the matter was an obiter dictum — a remark not necessary to resolve the case.

“In the first place, Your Honor, that was not the exact statement of the court,” Diokno said. “The court said the basis of the charge must relate to the incumbency of the impeachable official, which does not rule out the presentation of evidence of acts or omissions that occurred before the person became an impeachable officer.”

The prosecutor said the Supreme Court’s decision primarily dealt with the one-year constitutional ban on impeachment complaints after multiple complaints against Duterte were filed.

“It was in that context that the Supreme Court made pronouncements about the one-year bar and even about due process,” Diokno said. “At no time in that case was it ever a fact in issue about the mode of impeachment that is involved in our case today.”

But Cayetano challenged whether the court could apply due process principles differently depending on how an impeachment complaint was initiated.

“If the mode of initiation is by one-third that signed directly, and what is stated there is committed in relation to their office during their current term, wouldn’t it be illogical if you use another mode and it can be not committed in relation to their office and during their current term?” Cayetano asked.

Cayetano also cited a Supreme Court ruling on obiter dictum, arguing that a legal principle expressly decided by the court cannot simply be dismissed as an incidental remark.

He referred to Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, where the Supreme Court held that an adjudication on a point within the issues presented cannot be considered an obiter dictum if it was decided as part of resolving the case.

“The requirement that an impeachable act be committed in relation to their office and during the current term was not a remark made by the way,” Cayetano said. “The Supreme Court En Banc laid it down as one of the enumerated principles that due process requires.”

The senator pressed Diokno on whether evidence of alleged wrongdoing committed before Duterte became vice president could still be used in the impeachment trial.

“Let’s say he was a counselor, then he was a customs director, then he was BIR, then he’s now COA. Isn’t the remedy for all these other positions that weren’t impeachable is through the regular courts, regular case build-ups?” Cayetano asked.

Diokno disagreed, saying impeachment is not limited to acts committed while an official holds an impeachable position if those acts are relevant to determining whether the official remains fit to serve.

“If we are speaking about unexplained wealth, Your Honor, I have repeatedly cited the cases of the Supreme Court that provide that we must look from the reckoning of the first day of service of that public official,” Diokno said.

He argued that a public official’s integrity cannot be separated into different periods of service.

“Hindi po pwedeng hindi biyak-biyakin ang integridad,” Diokno said. “Integrity cannot be divided.”

The prosecutor said alleged unexplained wealth accumulated while an official held previous positions could affect the impeachment court’s assessment of whether that person should continue holding public office.

“If he amassed unexplained wealth when he was vice mayor or mayor that reached billions, I think that would have a very big impact on the court’s decision whether that person should continue in office or whether they are fit to have that office,” Diokno said.

Duterte’s defense has argued that allowing prosecutors to obtain broad financial records risks turning impeachment into a review of a public official’s entire career. 

The prosecution has countered that the records are necessary to determine whether allegations of betrayal of public trust are supported by evidence.###