Impeachment trial canceled on 2 October anew after VP's defense ask for extension to review AMLC records

The Senate impeachment court canceled the trial on Friday, 2 October, in favor of the defense’s request for ample time to review approximately 23 to 24 boxes of documents from the Anti-Money Laundering Council tracing financial transactions involving President Sara Duterte and her husband, Manases Carpio.

The impeachment court dedicated Thursday and Friday to a full-day trial to expedite proceedings ahead of plenary deliberations on the 2027 budget.

AMLC Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura was lined up to take the witness stand on Thursday, but was moved to Monday after defense lead counsel Shiela Sison asked for an extension, citing the voluminous AMLC records.

Sison claimed the prosecution only provided the summary before noon on Thursday, just hours before the AMLC official takes the witness stand.

“And without a review of that, we cannot imagine how we would be able to intelligently respond to the questioning of the prosecution to their intended witness, should it come to that,” Sison said.

In objecting to the delay of the trial, House prosecutor Chel Diokno asserted that the defense had already been given access to the subpoenaed records weeks earlier, on 2 September, and that the impeachment court had already resolved the matter as early as 20 July.

Because of this, Diokno maintained that there were no grounds to move the presentation of the AMLC records to next week, as they could have reviewed the documents much earlier.

In the same vein, Senator-judge Tito Sotto expressed strong reservations about delaying the trial for three days, saying the defense and prosecution have had since 6 July to prepare for any developments in the trial.

“They already know what’s coming. I don’t think many would enjoy a postponement simply because they weren’t given enough time,” he argued.

Senator-judge Alan Cayetano, however, countered that fairness dictates giving parties more time to examine AMLC documents, echoing the defense’s position that they received the summary only on the same day Buenaventure will testify.

Financial disclosure breach of law

The defense has long opposed the presentation of the couple’s AMLC records, invoking strict confidentiality provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA).

Sison reiterated on Thursday that AMLC documents and financial transaction reports are absolutely shielded from the impeachment court’s compulsory process, warning that publicly disclosing them through a mere subpoena could breach AMLA.

She stressed that even the Senate impeachment court recognized its strict confidentiality nature when it subpoenaed the documents back in July.

Diokno rejected it as “unavailing,” pointing out that the specific AMLA provisions provide that absolute confidentiality does not override or nullify a lawful subpoena from the Senate impeachment court.

“Section 8-A was only intended to prevent leaks by officers or employees of the Anti-Money Laundering Council. It was never intended as a blanket shield for any lawful subpoenas issued by a proper court,” he said.

“In fact…even the Sandiganbayan has issued subpoenas to the Anti-Money Laundering Council, and they have appeared before that court and brought documents,” Diokno added.

Similarly, Senator-judge Risa Hontiveros pointed out that there is “no absolute confidentiality that can tie the hands of the impeachment court,” which holds the exclusive power to try and decide impeachment cases.

Despite strong pushback, Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero granted the defense’s request for additional time to review the documents, resulting in the cancellation of Friday’s trial.

The AMLC’s official testimony will be followed by bank officials, insurance companies, and representatives from the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

The financial records in question had been a point of contention between the defense and the prosecution as early as the pre-trial stage. The BIR produced Duterte’s tax records to the Senate impeachment court after an authorization from President Marcos Jr.

Corona precedent

In compelling the tax records, Escudero cited the 2012 impeachment trial of late Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona as precedent.

At the time, former BIR Commissioner Kim Henares produced and presented Corona’s income tax returns after securing a 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.

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).

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

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 allegations of unexplained wealth under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.

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

Citing the AMLA, 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.