IN BRIEF: Impeachment court subpoenas Duterte's financial records on Day 7 of the trial

Robin Padilla addresses obstruction of justice complaint by Ombudsman

The session began with senator-judge Robin Padilla responding to Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla's statement that he had been ignoring the obstruction of justice complaint filed against him over his alleged assistance in Sen. Bato dela Rosa's escape amid his ICC warrant.

To recall, Dela Rosa was supposedly still at the Senate when suspended Senate sergeant-at-arms Mao Aplasca fired several warning shots inside the building the evening of May 13, supposedly to prevent National Bureau of Investigation agents from approaching. However, the Senate secretariat later confirmed that Dela Rosa left the premises at 2:30 a.m. on May 14. 

Padilla said he stayed in the building with Dela Rosa from May 11 until the 14th. Early morning of May 14, Padilla told Dela Rosa he was heading hom when Dela Rosa supposedly said, "Sasabay na 'ko." Padilla recalled, "Alangan namang tanggihan ko 'yun? Walang sasakyan si Senator Bato dahil inihatid lang siya sa Senado ng sasakyan ni Senador Alan Peter Cayetano." 

Padilla said he dropped off Dela Rosa in Makati, where the latter was picked up by his own vehicle. Since then, Dela Rosa has been in hiding.

During his manifestation, Padilla expressed his disappointment over the Ombudsman's allegation against him.

"Ito po ay nakalulungkot para sa isang senador, sa isang senator-judge, na masabihan na hindi sumusunod sa batas," he said. "Nakakalungkot po ito sapagkat hindi po ito totoo. Inaamin ko po sa inyo kung [International Criminal Court] lang, hindi po talaga ako susunod."

"Pero dahil ginagalang ko po ang Ombudsman, dahil siya po ay aking kaibigan na itinuturing, dahil nagkaroon na po kami ng napakahabang kwentuhan sa aking opisina nung siya po ay kalihim ng hustisya, nag-file po kami [ng counter-affidavit]," he added.

Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo took issue with the discussion of non-impeachment issues during the trial proper.

"Nagagamit ang oras ng impeachment court sa pagtatanggol ng sarili, ng ilang kasamahan natin sa mga akusasyon. This is not the right forum, the right venue, and not the right time to explain your situation," he stressed.

"Huwag po nating gamitin ang impeachment court sa pagpapaliwanag o pagtatanggol ng ating sarili... because the time we waste here to defend ourselves is an injustice to the Vice President. This is not the right forum," he continued.

Eventually, Sotto called on Escudero to refer the manifestations of non-impeachment issues to the Senate proper instead, which was granted.

Discussion on the admissibility of Duterte's financial records

Senator-judge Joel Villanueva asked the prosecution and the defense whether Duterte's bank, BIR, and AMLC records—if obtained through subpoena—would automatically be admitted as evidence during the trial.

Both panels agreed that issuing a subpoena merely requires the requested documents to be produced and does not, by itself, make them admissible as evidence.

"Ang hiling lang po ng prosecution ay may labas ang ebidensya, pero wala pa po tayo dun sa punto kung tatanggapin ba nitong hukuman ang evidence na yun, kung siya po ay admissible o hindi," House prosecutor Atty. Chel Diokno said.

While defense counsel Atty. Michael Poa agreed with this, he stressed that the defense's objection lies in the issuance of the subpoenas themselves.

He argued that, under jurisprudence, a subpoena must first satisfy the twin requirements of definiteness and relevance to be considered valid. According to the defense, those requirements were not met in the prosecution's request.

"'Yung twin requirements na 'yun, para po sa pananaw ng depensa, ay lacking in this case. And that is why we maintain our position as regards opposing itong request ng prosecution sa pag-issue ng subpoena," Poa said.

Senator-judge Pia Cayetano asked the prosecution if compelling the production of Duterte's records could be considered an invasive intrusion into a person's privacy.

She cited the 1967 Supreme Court case Stonehill v. Diokno, which prohibits general warrants that lack specific details and how illegally obtained evidence are inadmissible.

Diokno maintained that subpoenas are "not in any way invasive" as he explained the difference between a warrant and a subpoena.

"'Yung search warrant, kung ano man ang makuhang ebidensya doon, ay direktang binibigay po 'yun sa court, and that is now considered as evidence by the court that issued the search warrant. Iba po ang subpoena dahil 'pag naglabas ang isang hukuman ng subpoena, itong mga records ay hindi po siya considered yet as evidence," he said.

"'Yan po ay ipo-produce lang, dadalhin lang po sa korte. And now it is up to the parties to decide which of those documents may be relevant in terms of the evidence that they need to present," he added.

The defense had a different view on the matter.

Poa argued that while a subpoena and a search warrant differ in execution, both are compulsory processes and can be equally intrusive.

"Subpoenas and search warrants are very much similar in that both are compulsory processes. So, yes, hindi tayo papasok sa bahay ng isang tao o ng nasasakdal, but it will be intrusive because we will be opening up all the financial transactions for almost 20 years of the respondent," he said.

Like a search warrant, Poa said that documents sought through a subpoena must also be particularly described. While he acknowledged that the prosecution had enumerated the records it wanted to obtain, he argued that the request was still overly broad.

"While they took pains to specify each and every document, the truth of the matter is, they're asking for everything," he said.

Can Duterte be impeached for acts committed before taking office?

Since the prosecution is requesting bank and tax records that date all the way back to 2007, senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano questioned whether an impeachable official may be held accountable for acts allegedly committed before assuming an impeachable office.

But Diokno maintained that this constitutes a betrayal of public trust.

"I think it's very clear that when we speak of betrayal of public trust, essentially we are looking at whether the public official is fit or unfit to continue in service," he said.

"Kung siya po ay nakapag-amass ng unexplained wealth noong siya ay vice mayor or mayor na umaabot sa bilyon-bilyones, I think that would have a very big impact on the court’s decision whether that person should continue in office or whether they are fit to have that office," he continued.

Subpoenas granted for Duterte’s bank, BIR, and AMLC records

After all was said and done, Escudero approved the issuance of subpoenas for Duterte's bank, BIR, and AMLC records from 2007 to 2021, saying the documents comply with the Rules of Court's requirements on relevance and definiteness.

"After a careful examination of the records requested, 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 2," he said.

He cited the impeachment trial of former Chief Justice Renato Corona, where bank records were also subpoenaed, noting that impeachment is an exception to normal bank secrecy protections.

The court authorized subpoenas for the following:

• Sara Duterte's bank accounts
• Her husband Manases Carpio's accounts
• Their joint accounts
• Accounts of their law firm Carpio & Duterte Lawyers
• Accounts of 19 corporations/entities linked to Duterte

However, it denied requests involving the JTC Group of Companies and Pikimong Philippines Corporation.

"Their general information sheets do not identify the respondent or her spouse as shareholders, and the prosecution at this time failed to show either a direct business interest or a clear and convincing basis to disregard their separate juridical personalities," Escudero said.

He also noted that only peso-denominated accounts are covered and that foreign-currency accounts are excluded unless the account holders give written consent.

Regarding the defense's argument that records before Duterte's current term should not be examined, Escudero said that they will "not be used to allege additional independent impeachable offenses."

"The court will only allow these records to be used to establish a factual baseline against which the respondent's assets, financial transactions, and business interests during her present term may be assessed," he explained.

On why the records of Duterte's husband can also be examined, Escudero said that public officials must disclose spousal assets under the law. Moreover, spouses' assets are generally treated as part of a common property pool under the Family Code's default regime of absolute community of property.

As for the subpoena to the BIR, however, Escudero clarified that the issuance is "merely a preliminary procedural step and does not by itself authorize the disclosure, inspection, or admission of the requested tax records into evidence."

In a press conference after the trial, impeachment court spokesperson Atty. Reginald Tongol said Escudero had already been prepared to rule on the prosecution's request for subpoenas as early as the first day of the trial on July 6, since the request was included in the House prosecution panel's pre-trial brief.

However, he explained that Escudero deferred issuing a ruling after the prosecution submitted a renewed request for subpoenas. 

"It was only after the request of the defense to be given a copy of such and the senator-udges asking that oral arguments be done, that the presiding officer yielded to such oral arguments that had been scheduled last Monday," he said.

"Basically, the main chunk of the decision of the presiding officer has already been prepared even before July 6. The presiding officer, also during the caucus, consulted his fellow senator-judges about it and asked about their views regarding the matter. So, handa naman siya ever since," he added.

Cayetano and other lawyers to oppose the issuance of subpoenas

Cayetano said he would formally oppose the issuance of subpoenas for Duterte's bank records by submitting his objections in writing.

He added that fellow senator-judges Loren Legarda, Imee Marcos, and Camille Villar would join him in signing the written opposition.

Day 7 of the trial began at 2 p.m. and adjourned shortly before 6 p.m. It will resume on Tuesday, July 21.

Duterte impeachment trial

Duterte is facing a total of four impeachment complaints. The first complaint was filed by a coalition of various organizations on Feb. 2, but was set aside for violating the one-year bar rule. The second was filed on Feb. 9, but was withdrawn to consolidate support for the third complaint.

The third complaint, backed by ML Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima, charged Duterte with culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, plunder or malversation, bribery, graft and corruption, and other high crimes.

The fourth complaint, endorsed by House Deputy Speaker Paolo Ortega and Manila 6th District Rep. Bienvenido Abante, similarly alleged constitutional violations, betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption, and other impeachable offenses.

The Senate impeachment court has approved a 92-day trial as of writing. Sixty-two trial dates have been set for House of Representatives prosecutors and 30 for Duterte's defense team, per a 14-page Pre-Trial Order obtained by The Philippine STAR.

According to Diokno, the articles of impeachment are being presented in the following order: fourth article, first article, third article, and second article.

If the Senate impeachment court finds her guilty of the charges, Duterte will be removed from her current post and permanently barred from holding public office.