THE prosecution and defense panels in Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial sparred on Wednesday, July 15, 2026, over whether the Senate impeachment court should compel the production of her bank records, tax documents and Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) reports to support allegations of unexplained wealth and false Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.
During oral arguments, House prosecutor Representative Chel Diokno urged the Senate sitting as an impeachment court to issue subpoenas for the financial records of Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases “Mans” Carpio, arguing that the documents are essential to determining whether the Vice President committed betrayal of public trust and violated the Constitution.
Opening the prosecution's arguments, Diokno framed the issue as whether the impeachment court would allow the truth to emerge.
“The issue is simple but weighty, will we open the door to the truth or block it?” he said.
According to Diokno, the requested bank, tax and AMLC records would help establish three allegations under Article II: that Duterte amassed wealth grossly disproportionate to her lawful income, failed to declare assets in her SALNs, and participated in business activities while serving as Vice President despite the constitutional prohibition.
Diokno maintained that the Senate's constitutional power to try impeachment cases includes the authority to compel the production of evidence, arguing that no ordinary law may curtail that authority.
“The Constitution vests this impeachment court with extraordinary powers. No person, no law and no administrative rule can limit or supersede it,” he said.
He pointed out that the Bank Secrecy Law expressly recognizes impeachment as an exception to the confidentiality of bank deposits, while the Data Privacy Act likewise allows disclosure pursuant to a valid subpoena.
Defense counsel Michael Poa, however, asked the court to reject the request, insisting that the subpoenas amount to an unconstitutional “fishing expedition” unsupported by evidence and in violation of due process and confidentiality laws.
Poa countered that the prosecution was attempting to build its case only after filing the impeachment complaint, arguing that none of the complaints initially filed against Duterte was accompanied by documentary evidence supporting allegations of unexplained wealth or false SALNs.
“It is not permitted to accuse now and then just look for proof later on. That is not how due process works,” Poa said.
He maintained that subpoenas must satisfy the legal requirements of definiteness and relevance, warning that requests covering nearly two decades of financial records were excessively broad and amounted to a prohibited fishing expedition.
The defense’s argument heavily anchored on the Supreme Court's ruling in Duterte v. House of Representatives, which, Poa said, clarified that impeachable offenses must consist of acts committed while occupying an impeachable office and in relation to that office.
He stressed that Duterte was only Davao City vice mayor and mayor during much of the period covered by the prosecution's requested documents.
According to the defense, allowing scrutiny of financial transactions dating back to 2007 would effectively authorize an unlimited search into Duterte's financial history unrelated to her tenure as Vice President.
The defense likewise argued that several statutes prohibit the disclosure of the records sought by the prosecution.
Poa cited provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, the National Internal Revenue Code and other confidentiality laws, contending that Congress deliberately did not include impeachment as an exception to those disclosure restrictions.
He also questioned the prosecution's request for the financial records of Duterte's husband, arguing that Carpio is a private citizen who does not hold an impeachable office.
While acknowledging that the Bank Secrecy Law recognizes impeachment as an exception, Poa maintained that such an exception is not automatic and does not dispense with constitutional safeguards requiring relevance and due process.
Responding to the defense's claim that financial records predating Duterte's election as Vice President are irrelevant, Diokno argued that her financial history as a public official in Davao City is directly tied to the issue of her fitness to remain in office.
Citing an AMLC report submitted to the House Committee on Justice, Diokno said Duterte's reported financial activity surged beginning in 2007, when she served as Davao City vice mayor, and exceeded P3 billion from 2007 to 2013 while she served as vice mayor and later mayor.
“If she amassed staggering amounts of unexplained wealth while she was vice mayor and mayor, doesn't that say a lot about her unfitness to serve as Vice President?" he asked.
Diokno argued that the constitutional ground of betrayal of public trust allows the impeachment court to examine a public official's overall conduct as a government servant, not merely acts committed after assuming an impeachable office.
He also cited the impeachment trial of former Chief Justice Renato Corona, where the Senate admitted financial records predating Corona's appointment as Chief Justice and compelled banks to produce account documents despite objections based on bank secrecy.
Diokno also rejected the defense's characterization of the subpoenas as a fishing expedition.
He stressed that the court was merely being asked to compel the production of documents and that Duterte would still have every opportunity to object when specific records are formally offered as evidence during trial.
"There is no due process violation in issuing subpoenas," he said.
Diokno cited the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Republic v. Rabusa, where the Court upheld subpoenas for bank records in an unexplained wealth case and ruled that examining financial accounts pursuant to court-issued subpoenas did not constitute an impermissible fishing expedition.
Diokno also disputed the defense's reliance on Duterte v. House of Representatives, arguing that the portions cited by Poa were merely obiter dicta, or incidental observations, because the case dealt with a different constitutional mode of impeachment initiated by at least one-third of House members.
He further argued that the confidentiality provisions under the Anti-Money Laundering Act were intended to prevent unauthorized leaks by AMLC personnel -- not to restrict the constitutional powers of an impeachment court.
Poa also maintained that due process applies at every stage of impeachment proceedings, including the issuance of subpoenas.
He warned that allowing judicial processes to override confidentiality provisions enacted by Congress would effectively suspend existing laws.
“Impeachment is not a magic word or a magic wand that transforms an illegal act into a legal act,” Poa said.
While reiterating that public officials must be held accountable, the defense argued that accountability should not come at the expense of legal protections guaranteed under the Constitution and existing statutes.
The Senate impeachment court has yet to rule on whether it will grant the prosecution's request to issue subpoenas for Duterte's financial records. (TPM/SunStar Philippines)