Marcos Nod Seen as Key to Opening Sara Duterte Records in Impeachment Trial

MANILA, Philippines — President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. may have a critical role to play if the prosecution insists on presenting the tax and bank records of Vice President Sara Duterte and her husband, Manases Carpio, in her impeachment trial. Senate impeachment court spokesperson Reginald Tongol said on Thursday that the procedure used to obtain those documents during the 2012 impeachment trial of the late former Chief Justice Renato Corona may again be followed this time. Corona was convicted after several months. Tongol said at an online press briefing that during Corona’s trial 14 years ago, Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Commissioner Kim Henares sought authorization from President Benigno Aquino III after the Senate impeachment court issued a subpoena for the chief justice’s tax records. READ: Prosecution: Evidence enough vs Sara Duterte even if tax subpoena denied Henares received Aquino’s authorization as protection against possible criminal liability under privacy and confidentiality conditions of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) in complying with the impeachment court’s subpoena, Tongol said. In that case, the subpoena preceded the request for presidential authority to release Corona’s tax records to the impeachment court. Tongol said the procedure allowed Henares to avoid possible contempt from the impeachment court had she refused to release the documents and also protected her from any liability for releasing confidential tax information without legal authority. Section 270 of the NIRC penalizes BIR personnel who divulge information collected from taxpayers, including trade secrets and confidential information. READ: Prosecution, defense clash over VP’s bank, tax records “That was the process, which is why the presentation of tax records during the Corona impeachment trial was organized,” Tongol said. A similar process could be considered if the impeachment court subpoenas Duterte’s BIR records, Tongol added. Manila Rep. Joel Chua, a member of the House prosecution panel, indicated that he and the others were reluctant to get the President’s permission to get the documents. “As much as possible, we do not want to disrupt the executive, given the president’s many responsibilities,” Chua said. “If there are other options available, we will explore those first.” The Senate impeachment court on Wednesday deferred its decision on whether to subpoena the bank and tax records of Duterte, as the prosecution and defense lawyers debated whether accountability or confidentiality should prevail. Impeachment court presiding officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero gave senator-judges until Monday to study what he called “complicated” issues raised by both parties. The prosecution and the defense each presented about 30 pages of arguments in their memorandums, laying out their respective positions for the senator-judges to consider. Asked whether the President has the sole power to authorize the BIR chief to present the tax records of any individual before the impeachment court, Tongol cited Section 71 of the NIRC, which provides that income tax returns (ITRs) “shall constitute public records and be open to inspection as such upon the order of the President of the Philippines.” “That power is provided by law,” he added. But can Duterte’s defense team challenge such a subpoena in the Supreme Court? Tongol said there were two schools of thought regarding that. One view holds that the Senate has the sole constitutional authority to try and decide on all matters concerning impeachment cases. The other believes that the Supreme Court may review impeachment proceedings if there is an allegation of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, or a violation of constitutional rights, Tongol explained. Anyone is free to file a case, but whether the high court will decide on the merits or dismiss it is uncertain, he said. “If it’s dismissed because the Supreme Court will say it’s a political question to which the Senate has the sole power to try, then that’s the only time we will know a definitive answer,” Tongol said. Lawyer Michael Poa, who represented the defense during oral arguments last Wednesday, questioned the relevance of the documents sought by the prosecution as these spanned nearly two decades and dated as far back as 2007, when Duterte was Davao City’s vice mayor. He noted pointedly that she was a nonimpeachable officer then. Citing jurisprudence, he argued that an impeachable offense must be committed while the official was actively occupying the impeachable post. He also opposed the prosecution’s request to subpoena the bank records of Carpio, a private citizen who is outside the scope of any impeachment proceedings. Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno told the court that Duterte and her spouse’s tax and bank documents are vital to exposing the true state of her finances, a key element of the impeachment case, and would help senator-judges assess her fitness for office and whether her wealth was lawfully acquired. Diokno said that Duterte’s bank records “increased significantly” in 2007, with transactions that year rising to P208.15 million. He added that financial movements intensified between 2009 and 2013, with annual totals consistently exceeding P400 million. The impeachment court has allotted 92 trial days (three months), hearing three times a week—62 days for the prosecution and 30 for the defense. But Senate President Sherwin “Win” Gatchalian has warned that the trial could stretch to seven months. Chua told a media briefing that the trial could move faster if prosecutors believe the Articles of Impeachment they had presented were strong enough to secure Duterte’s conviction. “After one, two, three [charges], and the evidence is already strong, even overflowing, and we believe that it would help the impeachment court shorten and expedite the proceedings, we may consider that approach,” he said. The House prosecution panel had withdrawn six witnesses for Article IV (threats against President Marcos, first lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former Speaker Martin Romualdez), leaving National Bureau of Investigation Director Melvin Matibag as its remaining witness for the article. Tongol, however, said that it would be too early to say that the impeachment trial would be finished ahead of schedule after some of the prosecution witnesses were withdrawn. “The saved trial days may be used for other witnesses or other matters that the court will consider,” he said. Veteran lawyer Lorna Kapunan, a volunteer counsel for the House prosecution panel, said the responsibility for making the trial proceed faster lay not solely on their side. She pointed out that the current slow pace of the proceedings was due to repeated objections raised by Duterte’s lawyers, who even counted typographical errors that did not alter the prosecution witness’ testimony. Kapunan said the pace of the trial also depended on the number of “clarif