Duterte: Disclosure of financial records in impeachment trial violates her rights

MANILA, Philippines – The defense team of Vice President Sara Duterte continued to insist that the disclosure of her bank, tax, and other financial records would violate laws and her constitutional rights. During the oral arguments before the impeachment court on Wednesday, defense spokesperson and counsel Michael Poa argued that impeachment is indeed about accountability but should not be used to violate a person’s rights. “The prosecution has repeatedly invoked accountability…. We agree with them, no one is above the law. But in the same manner, no one must fall below or be outside the protection of the law,” said Poa during the impeachment trial’s sixth day. “Impeachment is indeed a powerful constitutional tool. But Your Honors, impeachment is not a magic word or a magic wand that one can just wave to transform an illegal act into a legal act, to transform unlawful access to lawful access,” he added. The Senate impeachment court is in the middle of deliberating the House prosecution’s request to issue subpoenas or compel the production of Duterte and her husband’s Bureau of Internal Revenue tax records and bank documents, as well as Anti-Money Laundering Council files related to them. Poa represented the defense during the oral arguments on Wednesday, while Akbayan Representative Chel Diokno stood as the prosecution’s torchbearer. Each of the parties was given 15 minutes for their key arguments, and then another 10 minutes each for rebuttals. For 12 minutes, Poa reiterated their points in the position paper they had submitted to the impeachment court: that there would be an alleged violation of Duterte’s rights, and that the issuance of a subpoena would violate the confidentiality clauses in laws such as the Anti-Money Laundering Act and the National Internal Revenue Code. “The issue before the impeachment court today is not whether you possess the power to issue a subpoena. The real issue is whether such power may be exercised in a manner that disregards due process and compels the production of documents and information beyond what is allowed by law,” Poa argued. Fishing expedition? “When a subpoena becomes oppressive, when it is unreasonable, and when it is merely issued for the very purpose that there is a hope that somewhere, somehow, something incriminating will come out, it ceases to be an instrument of justice. It becomes a weapon of a fishing expedition. And that is exactly what confronts this very court today,” he added. University of the Philippines College of Law associate dean and assistant professor Paolo Tamase explained to Rappler that a fishing expedition means that a party is using an existing legal proceeding to dig deeper into another offense. Its purpose is to look for things against a person using evidence you only find through another legal proceeding, he added. But in response to Poa, Diokno said the issuance of subpoenas will not violate Duterte’s due process because the trial is only at the stage of requesting documents. He added that the defense always has the opportunity to object even at a later stage of the proceedings. The lawmaker, who previously chaired the Free Legal Assistance Group, begged to disagree with Poa’s point that the prosecution was conducting a fishing expedition. He cited Republic of the Philippines v. Rabusa, where the Supreme Court said that a lower court erred in not examining the bank accounts in question. This ruling also reiterated the four instances where bank secrecy may be waived: when there is a written permission from the depositor in impeachment cases when there is a court order in cases involving bribery or dereliction of duty by public officials when money deposited or invested is the subject of litigation “[The impeachment court] has the sole, exclusive power to determine an impeachable offense, and that includes the power to find out the entire truth and make your decision based on that basis,” Diokno added. The Senate impeachment court is set to render its ruling on the House prosecution’s request to issue subpoenas on Monday, July 20. Concerns about conclusive statements Lead defense counsel Sheila Sison approached the podium after the oral arguments on Wednesday afternoon. There, Sison referred to prosecution counsel Lorna Kapunan’s lengthy speech on Tuesday night, July 14, where she announced the dropping of Zuleika Lopez, Duterte’s chief-of-staff, as a prosecution witness. According to Sison, the defense was concerned about manifestations that bore “conclusions of law and facts” that only the impeachment court should decide on. “Now, why is this a concern for the defense? Because this affects the fairness and balance of this impeachment court and the way it would perceive whatever manifestations or expressions of sentiments or discourses that counsel for both parties will deliver before this court and before the public,” the lead counsel said. “We are being heard by the public and by our distinguished members of the Bar who also are officers of the court, and we all know that we are before the impeachment court, and, therefore, we should try evidence and not advocate for the conclusions or the positions that we may have already made even before we went to this trial,” she added. House lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro also made manifestations during the trial in response to Sison. In the end, presiding officer Senator Chiz Escudero ruled that manifestations of withdrawal of witnesses should be limited to actual withdrawal, with no additional statements. Escudero said this applies to both the prosecution and the defense. – Rappler.com