Impeach court denies prosecution's bid to compel VP to authenticate bank, tax records subpoenaed vs her

The Senate impeachment court on Tuesday denied the prosecution’s bid to compel Vice President Sara Duterte to confirm the authenticity and existence of the subpoenaed bank, tax, and business records of her and her husband, Mans Carpio, amid allegations of unexplained wealth.

Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero sustained Duterte’s objection to stipulate the financial reports, but turned down her camp’s request to expunge the prosecution's attempt to have the VP admit them into the court’s records.

The prosecution initially sought to admit 104 items, but later withdrew the request on the condition that the defense enter into stipulations, or a written agreement.

The items in question encompass Duterte and Carpio’s bank accounts, business interests, tax filings, and other personal financial records, which the court obtained via subpoena.

The request aims to support Article II of the Articles of Impeachment, which accuses Duterte of acquiring unexplained wealth, undeclared corporate assets, and inaccurate declarations of her wealth in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth, or SALN.

Escudero, however, ruled that stipulations require the party's agreement. Given the defense objection, amid concerns that the move may circumvent Duterte’s right against self-incrimination, Escudero said the impeachment court cannot compel Duterte’s camp to serve a written response to the request.

The presiding officer pointed out that Duterte’s right against self-incrimination remains protected even while standing trial for impeachment. Every person is entitled to this safeguard enshrined in the Bill of Rights (Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution) “even under the impeachment process,” Escudero stressed.

“If the request is allowed, ‘any material and relevant matter of fact’ so requested for answer will be ‘tantamount to compelling’ the respondent to be a witness against herself,” the ruling states.

Furthermore, Escudero contended that the request, which requires Duterte to answer the issue under oath, leaves her vulnerable to perjury and constitutes compulsion prohibited by the Constitution.

House prosecutor Chel Diokno reiterated on Monday that the request for admission will narrow the issues and expedite the trial by reducing the need to call witnesses to verify the subpoenaed documents.

Diokno proposed withdrawing the request if the defense agrees to stipulate the existence of the financial records, their authenticity, and that the competent banks produced them pursuant to the subpoena.

The impeachment court, however, argued that any measures to fast-track the proceedings should not come at the expense of the respondent’s substantial rights provided by the Constitution.

“Procedural due process requires the prosecution to establish the charges through competent evidence, and that respondent be afforded a fair and meaningful opportunity to contest such evidence,” the ruling reads.

“The prosecution cannot shift its burden of proof to respondent through the simple expedient of a request for admission. To compel respondent to answer the request, under pain of having the matters therein deemed admitted, would undermine these safeguards,” it added.

Escudero also did not subscribe to the prosecution's rationale that impeachment proceedings are not criminal prosecutions and are therefore not governed by the rules applied in criminal cases.

Diokno’s position contradicts that of defense lead counsel Sheila Sison, who argued that impeachment proceedings—though sui generis (of its own kind)—are penal in nature, and therefore the self-incrimination clause is applicable to the VP.

Citing a 2011 Supreme Court jurisprudence (Gutierrez vs House of Representatives Committee on Justice), Escudero concurred with the defense’s position that impeachment is “analogous to a criminal trial, although it is not a criminal prosecution per se.”

Another SC decision he cited was In re Impeachment of Horrilleno (1992), where the high court noted that “impeachment proceedings before courts had been described in other jurisdictions as highly penal in character.”

“To reiterate, Duterte v. House of Representatives holds that the Bill of Rights applies throughout the impeachment process. Respondent’s right against self-incrimination under Article III, Section 17 must therefore be respected in this trial,” the ruling concluded.

Despite this, Escudero ruled that the prosecution’s request shall remain in the record as part of the impeachment proceedings, provided that the same shall have no evidentiary or prejudicial effect against the VP’s case.