SUBPOENAS GRANTED: Duterte’s ‘money trail’ now open to impeachment prosecutors

By Francis Allan L. Angelo

Prosecutors in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte secured one of their most significant procedural victories on Monday after the Senate impeachment court granted their request to subpoena her bank, Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) records, giving them documentary evidence to test the unexplained wealth allegations under Article II rather than relying primarily on witness testimony.

Article II of the Articles of Impeachment accuses Duterte of betrayal of public trust by amassing unexplained wealth, concealing assets in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs), and engaging in business activities prohibited by the Constitution.

Presiding Officer Francis Escudero, reading the court’s ruling, said the requested documents satisfy the Rules of Court’s requirements for relevance and definiteness and are material to the allegations under Article II of the impeachment complaint.

“The court finds that the requested documents meet the requirements set forth above – they are reasonably described, readily identifiable, prima facie relevant and material to the allegations under Article II,” Escudero said.

The impeachment court rejected the defense’s argument that the subpoenas amounted to a “fishing expedition,” holding that the records are intended to establish a factual baseline for determining whether Duterte’s assets and financial transactions during her term are disproportionate to her lawful income.

Escudero also overruled the defense’s objection to records covering 2007 to 2021, before Duterte assumed the vice presidency, saying the financial documents may be examined to establish a baseline for evaluating the unexplained wealth allegations.

He emphasized, however, that the pre-2022 records may not be used to introduce new impeachable offenses outside the Articles of Impeachment.

Escudero noted that this was not the first time bank records had been examined in an impeachment trial, recalling that the Senate granted a similar request during the 2012 impeachment trial of then-Chief Justice Renato Corona, where the Senate also examined financial records predating his tenure as chief justice.

The court likewise overruled the defense’s objection to subpoenas covering the separate and joint bank accounts of Duterte’s husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, ruling that his financial records are relevant because spouses are required to disclose their assets under Republic Act No. 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

Escudero also granted subpoenas for AMLC documents involving 19 corporate entities and one partnership allegedly linked to Duterte in connection with Article II of the impeachment complaint.

Summarizing the ruling, Escudero said the impeachment court approved subpoenas directed at banking institutions covering the accounts of Duterte, Carpio, their separate and joint accounts, the partnership of Carpio Lawyers, and the 19 listed corporate entities.

“The request for subpoenas directed to the concerned banking institutions covering the accounts of respondent, Atty. Manases Carpio, separately or jointly, the partnership of Carpio Lawyers and 19 listed corporate entities is granted,” Escudero said.

He ordered the concerned banks to submit the requested records to the clerk of the impeachment court on July 30, 2026, at 9 a.m.

The impeachment court also granted, with reservations, the prosecution’s request for documents relating to the law partnership linked to Duterte and Carpio, limiting the subpoena to records the court found sufficiently relevant to the allegations under Article II.

Escudero, however, denied the issuance of subpoenas for documents from two companies allegedly linked to Duterte and Carpio after ruling that the prosecution failed to establish their prima facie relevance to the impeachment complaint.

The ruling allows the prosecution broad access to Duterte’s financial records while limiting discovery to documents the court found directly material to the unexplained wealth allegations, rejecting requests it deemed insufficiently connected to the charge.

The subpoenaed documents go to the heart of Article II, with the prosecution arguing the records are necessary to establish whether Duterte’s assets and financial transactions are consistent with her lawful income.

The prosecution argues the records are necessary to establish whether Duterte’s assets and financial transactions are consistent with her lawful income.

If the records show that Duterte’s assets, deposits and financial transactions are generally consistent with her lawful income and SALNs, they could strengthen the defense’s case and undermine the unexplained wealth allegation.

Conversely, if prosecutors identify substantial discrepancies between Duterte’s declared income, SALNs and actual financial transactions – or establish unexplained transfers through accounts linked to her, her husband or relevant entities – the documents could become central evidence supporting Article II, which alleges betrayal of public trust through unexplained wealth and nondisclosure of assets.

By reaffirming the Senate’s authority to subpoena financial records in impeachment proceedings, consistent with the precedent set in the Corona trial, Escudero reinforced that bank secrecy protections are subject to the constitutional exception for impeachment proceedings.