The Senate impeachment court formally received the tax records of Vice President Sara Duterte and her husband, Mans Carpio, from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) on Thursday following a clearance from President Marcos Jr.

Representatives from the bureau went to the Senate early Thursday to turn over the records to the clerk of court, meeting the deadline set by the tribunal. 

The submission was in accordance with the impeachment court-issued subpoena on 20 July despite strong objections from Duterte’s defense lawyers. 

The subpoenaed documents include tax records of several corporations, such as law firms, linked to the Duterte couple. 

The records in question had been a point of contention between the defense and the prosecution as early as the pre-trial stage. 

However, after grueling hours of intense debate, impeachment court presiding officer Chiz Escudero ruled in favor of the prosecution on 20 July and compelled the tax records, citing the impeachment trial of the late Supreme Court chief justice Renato Corona in 2012 as precedent. 

At the time, former BIR Commissioner Kim Henares produced and presented Corona’s income tax returns after securing the mandated clearance from then-President Noynoy Aquino.

Section 71 of the National Internal Revenue Code empowers the President to allow the production and inspection of income tax returns, which are strictly confidential.

As a result, the Senate impeachment court compelled the disclosure of Corona’s tax records to investigate the discrepancies in his SALN as alleged by the prosecution. 

Corona was later found guilty by the Senate impeachment court of betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution for failing to accurately disclose his SALN (statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth).

‘Ill-gotten wealth’

Like Corona, Duterte is also being accused of acquiring ill-gotten wealth, deliberately failing to truthfully and accurately declare her net worth and properties in her SALN, and non-compliance with the mandatory divestment of business interests.

The prosecutors have argued that these constitute an impeachable offense and that compelling the production of Duterte's and Carpio's tax and bank records would support the allegations under Article II. 

Defense lawyer Michael Poa earlier contended that demanding the production of these documents overrode the legal protections, such as the absolute confidentiality of bank deposits under the Bank Secrecy Law and the Tax Code.

Citing the Anti-Money Laundering Act, Poa said the law did not include impeachment as an exception to the prohibition on disclosure; thus, the court could not compel the production of the records in question.

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

House prosecutor Chel Diokno, meanwhile, countered that no less than the Bank Secrecy Law provides that all bank deposits are considered absolutely confidential in nature except in cases of impeachment. 

He pointed out that these records are necessary to examine the extent of Duterte’s wealth and ascertain whether it matches her legitimate income and her SALN.

Poa lamented that this was tantamount to an “unlimited search” through Duterte’s financial history, which he argued violated tax and privacy laws and must therefore be denied by the impeachment court.

“While the impeachment court is a constitutional creation, it cannot go over and above the Constitution itself,” Poa said during the debate on 20 July

Despite the objection, Duterte’s financial history, including bank and tax records, from 2007 to 2021, was ordered to be submitted to the court.

Escudero, however, pointed out that the court’s subpoena does not automatically authorize the disclosure, inspection, or admission of the requested tax records into evidence.

The defense could also contest the relevance, materiality, authenticity, admissibility, or other evidentiary infirmities once the impeachment court tackles Article II