Just an attempt to suppress evidence.

That's how House Committee Chairperson Batangas 2nd district Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” Luistro framed the criminal charges filed against her Monday, April 27 by Vice President Sara Duterte's husband, lawyer Manases Carpio before the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office.

“Let me state for the record, it has been the position of the committee that in as far as the proceedings at the Committee on Justice is concerned, we maintain the position that we did not violate any law,” Luistro told DZBB radio.

Luistro said the case filed by Carpio against lawmakers and financial regulators was part of the defense’s legal playbook. However, she vowed that it will not derail the work of the committee.

“Basta ang maliwanag (What's clear is), these are attempts to suppress the disclosure of this information,” Luistro said, referring to the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) data presented during the April 22 impeachment hearing.

Carpio filed criminal complaints against members of the House panel, as well as officials of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) and the AMLC, as he alleged violations of the Bank Secrecy Law and the Data Privacy Act following the disclosure of him and his wife's financial transaction reports during the impeachment hearing.

The complaint came after AMLC submitted to the panel a report flagging hundreds of “covered” and “suspicious” bank transactions involving Duterte and her husband, amounting to billions of pesos, which are now under scrutiny as part of the impeachment case.

Luistro underscored that the committee exercised extreme caution before allowing the disclosure, citing extensive internal deliberations on the legal implications.

“Talagang nag-iingat ang committee (The committee is being very careful),” she said, as she noted that lawmakers weighed differing legal opinions before proceeding.

She explained that the panel deliberately avoided subpoenaing banks or obtaining bank records, which are covered by the Bank Secrecy Law, and instead relied on AMLC reports aligned with the agency’s mandate under the Anti-Money Laundering Act.

“Ang nirereport po ng AMLC (What the AMLC is reporting) is not the bank account. Ang nire-report po ay (What's being reported are) covered transactions and suspicious transactions,” Luistro clarified.

Luistro said the committee even took a more conservative approach despite having the authority to compel bank records, precisely to avoid legal complications.

“Admittedly, we’re taking the safer side. We opted not to subpoena the bank, including the bank records, because we can actually see from the documents of other government agencies the information that we wanted to see,” she said.

She underscored that impeachment proceedings are anchored on the Constitution’s accountability mechanism, which allows exceptions to strict confidentiality rules when public officials are being held to account.

“Ang ipinaglalaban ng (The fight being waged by the) impeachment process is the mandate of accountability mechanism in the Constitution. Having said so, it must be applied in totality,” she said.

Luistro said confidentiality rules must be read alongside constitutional exceptions, especially in impeachment cases where public accountability is paramount.

“We remember that under the Bank Secrecy Law, it was expressly provided that impeachment cases should be an exemption in confidentiality. Applying totality, it should be applied as well pagdating sa AMLC,” Luistro said.