Sara Duterte Impeachment Trial: Senate Divided Over Subpoenaing Financial Records

MANILA, Philippines – The sixth day of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial on Wednesday centered on oral arguments over whether the Senate impeachment court should subpoena her bank records, tax returns, and Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) documents in connection with Article II of the impeachment complaint, which alleges unexplained wealth and undeclared assets. No witnesses took the stand, with both sides given 15 minutes each for arguments and 10 minutes for rebuttal. Senator and presiding officer Francis Escudero said senator-judges agreed in caucus to decide on the matter on Monday, July 20. The prosecution argued that Duterte’s financial activity surged significantly starting in 2007, citing an AMLC report submitted to the House committee on justice. House prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno said transaction values reached P208.15 million that year, with financial movements intensifying between 2009 and 2013. Diokno also pointed to the Corona impeachment trial as precedent, noting the Senate then subpoenaed and admitted tax records of then-Chief Justice Renato Corona as evidence. Prosecution spokesman Jay Tolosa said obtaining the documents early in the proceedings would help avoid delays when Article II is eventually tackled. Meanwhile, the defense pushed back, with counsel Michael Poa warning that the subpoena request risked becoming a fishing expedition. Poa argued that impeachment is not a basis for disregarding due process or compelling production of documents beyond what the law allows. Poa said that when a subpoena becomes oppressive and is issued merely in the hope that something incriminating will surface, it ceases to be an instrument of justice. Prosecution panel member San Juan Rep. Ysabel Maria Zamora countered that the panel has enough evidence to support its unexplained wealth allegation even if the subpoena is denied. Impeachment court spokesperson Regie Tongol clarified that a simple majority of senator-judges present on July 20 is sufficient to grant or deny the subpoena request, with the winning threshold set at 50 percent plus one. Tongol also said it would be unfair to treat the subpoena vote as a preview of the senator-judges’ eventual conviction vote, saying the only issue before them is a citizen’s right in private matters. On the grave threats article, the prosecution withdrew six more witnesses for Article IV, including PNP Firearms and Explosives office representatives, Reuters reporter Mikhail Flores, Rappler reporter Bonz Magsambol, former sheriff Abe Andres, a family member of a victim of threats, and a psychiatrist. House prosecutor Rep. Lorenz Defensor said the panel has established its case and any additional witnesses could be counterproductive, likening excess to spoiling a dish with too many ingredients. NBI Director Melvin Matibag was confirmed as the lone remaining witness for Article IV, scheduled to testify on July 21. Meanwhile, the prosecution announced its first three witnesses for Article I on the alleged misuse of confidential funds: House legislative archives chief Marivic Pareja and two former Landbank branch managers, Violeta Constantino and Nenita Camposano. A sideshow briefly disrupted proceedings when Sen. Pia Cayetano accused NBI Director Matibag of trying to intimidate senator-judges by publicly raising a planned investigation into alleged funding irregularities involving the 2019 Southeast Asian Games sports complex, a project linked to her brother Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano. Matibag, however, maintained that the probe is incidental and has nothing to do with Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano. The impeachment court, for its part, ordered both parties to stop explaining their reasons for withdrawing witnesses, after the defense complained that the prosecution’s explanations contained conclusions that only the court can determine.