Prosecutors asserted on Wednesday that the Senate impeachment court possesses the authority to order the release of Vice‑President Sara Duterte‑Carpio’s financial records, citing constitutional provisions that exempt impeachment proceedings from standard confidentiality restrictions.
The prosecution argued that the Constitution grants the impeachment court broad powers to secure accountability, including the ability to subpoena bank statements, tax documents and Anti‑Money Laundering Council reports when relevant to the charges.
In response, the defense maintained that the requested records remain protected under existing statutes, emphasizing that the Anti‑Money Laundering Act expressly bars disclosure of AMLC information absent a specific legislative exception for impeachment.
Defense counsel also contested the request for the financial records of the Vice‑President’s husband, noting that he does not hold an impeachable public office and that any exception to bank‑secrecy rules must be clearly articulated by Congress.
Senator Francis Joseph “Chiz” Escudero, presiding over the trial, temporarily halted proceedings to allow the senator‑judges to deliberate privately on the prosecution’s motions for subpoenas.
When the trial resumed, Escudero announced that the judges would continue studying the issue and issue a ruling on the matter the following Monday, pending full review of the parties’ memoranda.
The prosecution’s subpoenas seek bank records and Bureau of Internal Revenue documents, including the unsealing of tax filings, to support the second article of impeachment that alleges unexplained wealth and nondisclosure of asset statements from 2022 to 2025.
House investigators highlighted an increase in the Vice‑President’s declared net worth from roughly 34.9 million pesos in 2016 to 88.5 million pesos in 2024, and referenced an AMLC report indicating transactions totaling 3.02 billion pesos between 2007 and 2013.
Lawmakers and political analysts noted that the court’s decision could set a precedent for the scope of future impeachment inquiries, emphasizing that subpoenas are routine tools for gathering evidence rather than indicators of wrongdoing.
One representative questioned the defense’s opposition, suggesting that reluctance to produce bank records raises concerns about transparency, while academic experts warned that limiting access to relevant financial data could weaken impeachment as a constitutional accountability mechanism.
University scholars compared the current dispute to prior impeachment trials where access to financial records proved contentious, underscoring the need for the senator‑judges to balance legal considerations with the inherently political nature of impeachment.
Separately, officials framed the Vice‑President’s remarks about an alleged assassination plot against the President as a national‑security issue rather than a simple case of grave threats, emphasizing that the target of the statements was the President himself.
The Vice‑President denied any intent to harm the President, asserting that her comments were taken out of context and did not constitute an actual threat.
