Records under review Boxes containing bank records related to the alleged financial transactions of Vice President Sara Z. Duterte arrive at the Senate in Pasay City on 30 July 2026. The documents were submitted as part of the ongoing impeachment proceedings.
PHOTOGRAPH by Aram Lascano FOR DAILY TRIBUNE
Will the Senate impeachment court be opening a Pandora’s Box that could damn Vice President Sara Duterte, or will out pop a Jack in the Box, leaving the House prosecutors red-faced after they were accused of mounting a “fishing expedition?”
The question moved closer to an answer on Thursday when the Senate impeachment court formally received the tax records of Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases “Mans” Carpio, from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), after President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. signed off on their transfer under Section 71 of the National Internal Revenue Code.
The development also revived memories of the impeachment trial of former President Joseph Estrada where the Senate’s refusal to open the controversial “second envelope” triggered the prosecutors’ walkout which led to EDSA II and the President’s eventual resignation. (See related story)
Whether Duterte’s tax records will prove as politically consequential — or ultimately as controversial — as the Estrada documents remains to be seen.
Representatives from the BIR turned over the records to the Senate clerk of court after meeting the deadline set by the impeachment tribunal in compliance with a subpoena issued on 20 July despite strong objections from Duterte’s defense team.
The subpoenaed documents include the tax records of Duterte, Carpio, and several corporations, including law firms, linked to the couple.
Catch-22
Palace Press Officer Claire Castro said the President approved the release of the documents after the BIR sought his approval as required by law.
“If the law requires the President’s approval for the BIR to release the tax records of VP Sara and Atty. Manases Carpio, and this is necessary to establish the truth, he will not stand in the way,” Castro said.
She added that the Palace was prepared for accusations that the move was politically motivated.
“Whenever the President acts in accordance with the law and someone is affected, critics will always say it is politically motivated. But the President will continue to follow the law and due process regardless of what others say,” she said.
The tax records had been a point of contention since the pretrial stage.
Same charges
After hours of debate, impeachment court presiding officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero ruled on 20 July that the records should be produced, citing the 2012 impeachment trial of the late Chief Justice Renato Corona.
At the time, then BIR commissioner Kim Henares turned over Corona’s income tax returns after obtaining the approval of then President Benigno Aquino III.
Like Corona, Duterte is accused under Article II of acquiring ill-gotten wealth, failing to truthfully declare her net worth and properties in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN), and failing to divest her business interests as required by law.
The prosecution stressed that Duterte’s tax and bank records were necessary to determine whether her declared wealth matched her lawful income and her SALN.
Defense lawyer Michael Poa objected, arguing that the request violated the confidentiality protections under the Tax Code and the Bank Secrecy Law.
Poa said the prosecution’s request amounted to an “unlimited search” of Duterte’s financial history dating back to 2007, when she was vice mayor of Davao City, calling it “fatally overbroad.”
“While the impeachment court is a constitutional creation, it cannot go over and above the Constitution itself,” Poa said.
No escape hatch
House prosecutor Chel Diokno countered that the Bank Secrecy Law recognizes impeachment proceedings as an exception to bank deposit confidentiality.
Escudero, however, said the subpoena does not automatically make the tax records admissible as evidence.
He said the defense may still challenge their relevance, materiality, authenticity, or admissibility when the Senate impeachment court takes up Article II.
House prosecutors have cited Article II to support allegations of unexplained wealth against Duterte.
Earlier, the House Committee on Justice found probable cause based on alleged discrepancies in Duterte’s SALN from 2019 to 2024 and reports from the Anti-Money Laundering Council involving transactions linked to Duterte and Carpio.
