The Senate impeachment court on Monday ruled in favor of the prosecution to subpoena the bank and tax records of Vice President Sara Duterte and her husband, Mans Carpio, despite strong objections from the defense, which argued that insisting on doing so violates due process and statutory confidentiality laws. 

After almost four grueling hours of intense debates, impeachment court presiding officer Chiz Escudero declared that the prosecution’s request to subpoena Duterte’s financial records “meet[s] the requirements” set forth by the court. 

“They are reasonably described, readily identifiable, and prima facie relevant and material to the allegations under Article II,” Escudero said during the seventh day of the VP's impeachment trial. 

Article II of the Articles of Impeachment alleged that Duterte amassed unexplained wealth and that she deliberately failed to truthfully disclose her statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALNs), as well as failure to comply with the mandatory divestment in business interests. 

The prosecution and defense initially figured in a heated debate on the same issue during the first day of the oral arguments on Wednesday. 

The Senate impeachment court’s ruling on whether or not to subpoena the bank and tax records was supposedly to be handed down the same day, but was deferred on Monday, 20 July, after senator-judges asked for an extension to thoroughly review their opposing stances.

Escudero, on Monday, announced that the court granted the prosecution’s request and directed the concerned banking institutions, covering the separate and joint accounts of Duterte and Carpio, as well as their law firm and 19 companies connected to them. 

Escudero pointed out that these financial records are relevant because spouses are mandated to disclose their joint assets under the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA 6713).

“The banks are ordered to submit to the Clerk of Court the documents on July 30, 2026, at 9 a.m. with the attendance of the parties’ counsels,” Escudero said. 

As a result, Duterte’s financial records from 2007 to 2021 will be submitted to the court.

House prosecutors sought to compel the disclosure of Duterte and Carpio’s financial history to support allegations that she amassed unexplained wealth, contained under Article II. 

House prosecutor Chel Diokno argued that even existing jurisprudence allowed the disclosure of the records in question as they are necessary to provide a clear picture of the VP’s total revenues and to ascertain whether her income was acquired through legitimate and not unlawful dealings. 

“So we need to examine the extent of her wealth and to compare it against her legitimate income. That could only be determined by looking at the records that we are requesting from this honorable court,” Diokno told senator-judges on Monday. 

Defense member Michael Poa, however, countered that the prosecution’s thesis failed to meet the two key requirements to justify the issuance of the subpoena, which are the definiteness and the relevance of the financial records to the impeachment case. 

Poa contended that the prosecution’s request was “fatally overboard” as it sought to unseal Duterte’s financial records as early as 2007, or almost two decades ago. At that period, Duterte was still Davao City vice mayor, which Poa said was not an impeachable office. 

He argued that this is tantamount to “unlimited search” through Duterte’s financial history, which he argued is not permitted by the tax and privacy laws. 

“The documents they are asking, Your Honors, while specified, if you look really carefully, they are asking for all bank records without any assertions as to why all of these are relevant to prove whatever allegations they have stated in the Articles of Impeachment,” Poa told the impeachment court Monday.

Citing the Anti-Money Laundering Act (RA 916o), Poa said the law did not include impeachment as an exception for the prohibition on disclosure; thus, the court cannot compel the production of the records in question. 

He stressed that demanding the production of these documents overrides legal protections, such as the absolute confidentiality of bank deposits under the Bank Secrecy Law and the Tax Code.

“While the impeachment court is a constitutional creation, it cannot go over and above the Constitution itself,” Poa remarked. 

Diokno, meanwhile, argued the ruling on the subpoena does not necessarily mean that the financial records will be automatically admissible as evidence to the court. 

He averred that the Senate impeachment court was confronted with a similar issue during the impeachment trial of the late Supreme Court chief justice Renato Corona in 2012, during which the court accepted the same requested documents as evidence.

He also disputed Poa’s assertions regarding the Bank Secrecy Law, saying the law, although generally provides that all bank deposits are absolutely confidential, does not prohibit disclosure in impeachment proceedings.