The Senate impeachment court on Thursday received the tax records sought by House prosecutors in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. But as trial presiding officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero emphasized, receiving the documents is only the first step.

The subpoena, Escudero clarified, does not automatically make the records admissible as evidence. The defense may still challenge their relevance, materiality, authenticity, and admissibility when the impeachment court takes up Article II.

That distinction has revived memories of one of the most dramatic episodes in Philippine political history — the “second envelope” brouhaha during the impeachment trial of former President Joseph Estrada.

On 16 January 2001, House prosecutors led by then Rep. Joker Arroyo asked the Senate impeachment court, presided over by Chief Justice Hilario Davide, to open an envelope they said contained bank records that could help establish Estrada’s alleged secret “Jose Velarde” account.

The defense objected, arguing the documents were outside the Articles of Impeachment and therefore inadmissible.

After hours of debate, the senator-judges voted 11-10 against opening the envelope.

‘Irrelevant’

Then Senate President Aquilino “Nene” Pimentel Jr. voted with the majority, saying the prosecution had failed to establish the relevance of the documents to the specific allegations contained in the Articles of Impeachment.

The decision immediately triggered an unprecedented walkout by the House prosecution panel, which accused the Senate of blocking potentially crucial evidence.

Public outrage quickly followed. Thousands gathered at the EDSA Shrine in what became the EDSA II protests.

Within days, key Cabinet members, the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and the chief of the Philippine National Police at the time, now Senator Panfilo Lacson, withdrew support from Estrada, who left Malacañang on 20 January 2001.

In 2005, Pimentel, who had custody of the envelope after Estrada’s removal from office, testified before the Sandiganbayan that the documents showed that businessman Jaime Dichaves — not Estrada — had claimed ownership of the Jose Velarde account.

Pimentel presented the documents in support of Estrada’s defense.

Opened, scrutinized

The envelope was eventually opened and admitted during Estrada’s plunder trial, but it did not become the decisive evidence many had anticipated.