Senate Weighs Subpoena for VP Duterte's Financial Records Amid Secrecy Law Debate

The Philippine Senate is currently weighing its authority to issue subpoenas for the financial records of Vice President Sara Duterte-Carpio, as prosecutors and the defense clash over the scope of secrecy laws. On the sixth day of the impeachment trial, prosecutors argued that the Constitution grants impeachment courts broad powers to pursue accountability, allowing them to subpoena bank records, tax documents, and Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) reports if relevant to the charges. Prosecution spokesman Jose Manuel Tadeo “Chel” I. Diokno stated, "The defense may argue that this court has no power to examine VP Sara’s bank records, tax records and AMLC reports. That argument is not only legally flawed, it is an affront to the authority of this honorable court." He cited the Bank Secrecy Law, which recognizes impeachment as an exception to bank deposit confidentiality, and argued that the Data Privacy Act also permits the disclosure of personal information when covered by a duly issued subpoena. The defense, however, countered that the requested records remain protected under other laws. Defense lawyer Michael Wesley T. Poa said Section 8A of the Anti-Money Laundering Act bars the disclosure of AMLC information, adding that Congress could have expressly included impeachment as an exception if it intended to do so. He also objected to the request for the financial records of Ms. Duterte’s husband, Manases R. Carpio, noting he is not an impeachable public official. Presiding officer Senator Francis Joseph “Chiz” G. Escudero suspended proceedings to allow for closed-door deliberations among senator-judges. Upon resumption, Mr. Escudero announced that the senators had agreed to further study the issue and would issue a ruling on Monday. The motions include requests to subpoena bank records, AMLC reports, and Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) documents, along with the unsealing of tax records sought by the prosecution. These documents are intended to support the second article of impeachment, which alleges unexplained wealth, including the purported non-disclosure of statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN) from 2022 to 2025 and a significant increase in Ms. Duterte’s financial activity over several years. Lawmakers and political analysts suggest the court’s decision could shape the scope of future impeachment proceedings. La Union Rep. Francisco Paolo P. Ortega V questioned the defense’s opposition, asking, “If you have nothing to hide, why are you afraid of bank records?” Professor Cleve Kevin Robert V. Arguelles of De La Salle University noted that the ruling would determine how far an impeachment court could go in compelling the production of evidence to establish the truth. Professor Dennis C. Coronacion of the University of Santo Tomas described the subpoena issue as a "make-or-break point" that could decide the trial's outcome and affect future government investigations. University of the East political science professor Eric Daniel C. de Torres noted that the dispute resembles issues raised during past impeachment trials, stating, "Senator-judges would have to balance legal questions with the political nature of impeachment. What would actually prevail in this situation? The legal or the political?" Meanwhile, Malacañang stated that Vice President Duterte-Carpio’s remarks about an alleged assassination plot against President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. should be treated as a national security issue rather than a simple case of grave threats, rejecting the defense’s argument that her statements were merely responses to questions. Palace Press Officer Clarissa A. Castro told reporters that the offense of grave threats is consummated once the threatened party becomes aware of the threat, regardless of intent. Ms. Duterte has denied plotting to kill the President and maintained that her remarks were taken out of context and did not constitute an actual threat.