SC ruling doesn't bar evidence of acts before official's term, prosecution argues

House Prosecutor Chel Diokno asserted Monday that a Supreme Court (SC) ruling does not bar the presentation of evidence involving acts or omissions that occurred before an impeachable official assumed office, as the Senate impeachment court continues to tackle the prosecution panel's request to subpoena the bank records of Vice President Sara Duterte. Diokno made the statement as he argued against the application of a July 2025 SC ruling that declared a previous Articles of Impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional. “The court said the basis of the charge must relate to the incumbency of the impeachable official, which does not rule out the presentation of evidence of acts or omissions that occurred before the person became an impeachable official,” Diokno said. The House prosecution panel is seeking the disclosure of the bank and tax records of Duterte, her husband, Manases Carpio, and businesses linked to them. Diokno also said he believes the portion of the ruling stating that the basis of any impeachment charge must relate to the official's incumbency is “obiter dictum” and does not apply to the current case. In its ruling, the SC said that “the basis of any charge must be for impeachable acts or omissions committed in relation to their office and during the current term of the impeachable officer.” “My understanding of that case is that it really relates to the first mode of impeachment and the procedures that must be followed, the one-year ban provided in the Constitution, how that will be applied,” Diokno said. “‘Yun pong nabanggit nila that the basis of any charge must relate to the incumbency of the official, in my view that is obiter dictum,” he added. In law, an obiter dictum refers to a judge's observation or statement in a court ruling that is not essential to deciding the case, Diokno said. — MCG, GMA News