NEWS

Diokno, De Lima push back vs Carpio complaint

‘As public servants, it is our duty to respect the process. We are confident that we have not violated any law, and that we only performed our duty in accordance with the Constitution.’

Lade Jean Kabagani

Lawmakers involved in the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte insisted they would not be intimidated after appearing at a preliminary investigation into a complaint over the alleged disclosure of bank records linked to Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio.

Earlier, Liberal Partylist Rep. Leila de Lima said the complaint filed by Carpio was an attempt to divert public attention from the impeachment case against his wife and to pressure the lawmakers involved in the constitutional process.

She said she is ready to face the allegations head-on and maintained that the case would eventually be dismissed.

“We are confident this case will be dismissed. We will not be afraid to face it because we have not violated any law. We have nothing to cover up. We have nothing to hide,” De Lima said.

De Lima, recalling what she described as fabricated charges against her in the past, said those cases were meant to similarly silence her.

“I will not be intimidated and I will not back down from this,” she said.

De Lima and Akbayan Partylist Rep. Chel Diokno earlier attended the preliminary investigation of the complaint filed by Carpio over the alleged release of information involving P6.77 billion worth of bank transactions tied to him and Duterte.

The report in question had been submitted by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) to the House Committee on Justice after lawmakers issued a subpoena during hearings on the impeachment complaints against Duterte.

“As public servants, it is our duty to respect the process. We are confident that we have not violated any law, and that we only performed our duty in accordance with the Constitution,” Diokno said.

Carpio alleged that the submission of the AMLC report violated the Anti-Money Laundering Act, bank secrecy laws, and the Data Privacy Act, arguing that details of his financial transactions, including insurance payments, time deposits, investments and utility bills, should have remained confidential.