Atin Ito | Ontario’s First Filipino Community Newspaper – Trusted News and Stories for the Filipino-Canadian Community Atin Ito is Ontario’s first Filipino community newspaper, delivering trusted news, stories, and updates for Filipino-Canadians. Stay connected with your community.
Senate President Win Gatchalian and Impeachment Court Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero listen to oral arguments led by Rep. Chel Diokno (Akbayan) from the prosecution panel and Atty. Michael Poa of the defense team on July 20, 2026 as the trial of Vice President Sara Duterte continues. (Courtesy: Senate of the Philippines)
The Senate impeachment court has approved the request of the House prosecution to subpoena the financial, tax, and anti-money laundering records of Vice President Sara Duterte.
Presiding Officer Senator Francis Escudero ruled the requested documents met the legal requirements of relevance and definiteness, declaring them essential to the ongoing trial, specifically to allegations of unexplained wealth under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.
“The records may be used only to establish a factual baseline and not to introduce new impeachable offenses. The banks are ordered to submit to the clerk of court the documents on July 30, 2026 at 9 a.m.,” Escudero said.
The tribunal rejected defense claims the move constituted an unauthorized search, saying the data will establish a factual baseline to evaluate if the official’s wealth aligns with her lawful public income.
Covering the years 2007 to 2021, the approved subpoena also encompasses the bank records of Duterte’s husband, Manases Carpio, which the court deemed permissible under asset disclosure laws governing public officials and their spouses.
The subpoena also covers Anti-Money Laundering Council records involving a legal partnership and 19 corporate entities allegedly connected to the Vice President.
We’re ready for this—defense camp
Duterte’s camp said it would submit to the Senate impeachment court’s ruling while maintaining its opposition to the order, noting that legal remedies remain available.
In a press briefing following the seventh day of impeachment proceedings, Duterte’s defense spokesperson Michael Poa said: “The defense argued its position…nonetheless, the court has made its decision. On our part, we had strong grounds to oppose. At least that is our view.”
“But as for setbacks, we’re ready for whatever happens. The possibility of this happening is something we also anticipated,” he added.
Poa said the defense’s compliance with the order is without prejudice to any legal remedies that may still be available to them.
“We have not made that decision yet. This is something that we have to discuss as a team. And also, of course, in consultation with our client, the respondent, the Vice President,” he said.
Diokno: Not a fishing expedition
House prosecutor Chel Diokno rejected claims the prosecution’s request amounted to a “fishing expedition,” noting that the subpoenas were grounded on evidence already presented during the House inquiry into Duterte.
“What the prosecution is doing here is far removed from a fishing expedition…Ultimate facts are basically the essential factual elements that make up a party’s cause of action or defense.
In our case, we are alleging first of all, unexplained wealth. And based on the jurisprudence, the elements of unexplained wealth, the factual elements are: amassing unexplained wealth manifestly disproportionate to one’s lawful income and earnings, during one’s incumbency as a public official.”
“So, we have satisfied the requirement of alleging ultimate facts or essential factual elements regarding these three matters,” Diokno added.
Diokno also disputed the defense’s argument that AMLC records were barred under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine.
He said Section 8(a) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act was intended to prevent unauthorized disclosures by AMLC officials, not to bar compliance with court-issued subpoenas.
“Almost every week, the Sandiganbayan issues subpoenas for AMLC records, and despite what would appear to be a very categorical prohibition contained in that section, every time subpoenas are issued by the Sandiganbayan, they are honored by the AMLC and no one is questioning them.”
“This impeachment court is just the same. The subpoena issued by this impeachment court is for the purpose of determining accountability based on the power that is expressly given by the Constitution…It is our belief that confidentiality cannot trump accountability,” Diokno added.
Three witnesses to be presented
The House prosecution panel will begin presenting its case on the Vice President’s alleged misuse of confidential funds (Article I) with documentary custodians and bank officials Tuesday before calling witnesses to testify on the alleged recipients and handling of the funds, House prosecutor Joel Chua said.
Chua said the impeachment court has already been informed of the first three witnesses to be presented for Article I.
In an interview with Bilyonaryo News Channel, Chua said the prosecution will first present the director of the House of Representatives Legislative Archive and Museum Management, followed by two branch managers of the Land Bank of the Philippines.
Article I alleges that Duterte misused and irregularly liquidated P612.5 million in confidential funds released to the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education, including P125 million received by the OVP in December 2022.
‘Stick to the impeachment trial’
Meanwhile, Escudero ruled on Monday that senator-judges should reserve their personal grievances and accusations for the resumption of regular sessions after the State of the Nation Address (SONA) on July 27.
This was after senator-judges Alan Cayetano and Francis Pangilinan differed over whether matters unrelated to the articles of impeachment could be discussed before the court.
“When the Senate resumes next week after the President’s SONA, every member will have the opportunity, as a senator and not as a senator-judge, to air their grievances,” Escudero said.
He said the regular Senate session would be the proper forum to discuss, investigate or act on allegations involving senator-judges in their separate capacity as legislators.
The issue arose after senator-judge Robin Padilla manifested to deny claims that he had ignored the Office of the Ombudsman, saying he had submitted his counter-affidavit in connection with an obstruction of justice complaint over the escape of Senator Ronald Dela Rosa from the Senate premises on May 14.
Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo appealed to his colleagues to stop using the impeachment court’s time to answer accusations or discuss issues unrelated to the case against Duterte, saying time diverted from the prosecution and defense prolong the proceedings.
“This court was established for the Vice President and the Vice President only. This should be her time, this should be her forum,” Tulfo said.
He said senator-judges could defend themselves through press conferences, social media or regular Senate sessions, but not during impeachment proceedings.
Cayetano, however, invoked impeachment Rule 6, which provides for the supplementary application of Senate rules and the Revised Rules of Court when applicable.
Pangilinan disputed Cayetano’s interpretation, saying Rule 6 applies to matters involving evidence in the impeachment trial and not to privileged speeches.
Escudero said the court should avoid prolonged discussions of “collateral matters” that do not pertain to the impeachment charges against Duterte.
He allowed Padilla’s manifestation to remain in the trial record but ruled the matter could later be taken up by the Senate acting as a legislative body.
— Ram Superable, Joel E. Zurbano, Katrina Manubay, Maricel V. Cruz & Pot Chavez
*****
Credit belongs to: www.manilastandard.net
