The Senate Impeachment Court on Monday, July 20 granted the prosecution's requests to subpoena bank records, Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) reports, and tax documents of Vice President Sara Duterte; her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio and several corporations allegedly linked to them.

The court, however, denied requests involving two companies for lack of sufficient evidence connecting them to the respondents.

In his ruling, presiding officer Senator Francis "Chiz" Escudero said that the impeachment court ruled that the records sought by the House prosecution were prima facie relevant to article II of the articles of impeachment, which alleges unexplained wealth, and may be compelled through subpoenas subject to applicable legal safeguards.

The court granted the prosecution's request to issue subpoenas to various banking institutions and the AMLC covering Duterte, Carpio, their joint and separate accounts, the law partnership Carpio Lawyers, and 19 corporate entities whose links to the Vice President were supported by General Information Sheets, Articles of Partnership and Duterte's atatements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs).

However, the court denied requests covering JTC Group of Companies Philippines, Inc. and Pikimong Pikimong Philippines Corporation, as it ruled that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie connection between the companies and either Duterte or Carpio.

"The requests directed to banking institutions concerning JTC Group of Companies and Pikimong Pikimong Philippines Corporation are denied," the order stated. It said the prosecution had not shown a direct business interest or a sufficient basis to disregard the firms' separate juridical personalities.

The court also limited the subpoenas to peso-denominated bank accounts, denying the request insofar as it covered foreign currency deposits.

Citing Republic Act No. 6426, the Foreign Currency Deposit Act, the impeachment court ruled that foreign currency accounts remain confidential absent the written consent of the depositor. It noted that the Supreme Court had reached the same conclusion during the 2012 impeachment trial of then Chief Justice Renato Corona.

The AMLC was likewise ordered to produce the requested records involving Duterte, Carpio, the law partnership and the 19 corporations. The impeachment court rejected the defense's argument that the Anti-Money Laundering Act bars disclosure, ruling that statutory confidentiality provisions cannot defeat the Senate's constitutional subpoena power in an impeachment trial.

To protect sensitive information, however, the court directed the AMLC to submit the records "in camera" to the Presiding Officer through the Clerk of Court before any disclosure to the parties.

The impeachment court also granted the prosecution's request to subpoena tax records from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), finding the requested documents sufficiently described and prima facie relevant to the allegations under Article II.

As with the bank records, the court denied the request for tax records of JTC Group of Companies Philippines, Inc. and Pikimong Pikimong Philippines Corporation due to the absence of a demonstrated link to Duterte or Carpio.

The defense had opposed the subpoenas covering records from 2007 to 2021, arguing that the Supreme Court's ruling in Duterte v. House of Representatives limits impeachment proceedings to acts committed during an impeachable official's current term.

The impeachment court disagreed, saying the earlier records would not be used to prove new impeachable offenses but only to establish Duterte's financial baseline.

"These records are required to establish a factual baseline against which the Respondent's assets, financial transactions, and business interests during her present term may be assessed," the order stated.

The court cited the Corona impeachment trial, during which financial records and SALNs predating his appointment as Chief Justice were admitted to establish comparative financial circumstances.

It also rejected the defense's reliance on the Data Privacy Act, saying the law expressly allows disclosure of personal information pursuant to a subpoena and in court proceedings.

Addressing objections under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), the impeachment court said it was not determining tax deficiencies or civil liabilities, which remain within the authority of the BIR, but was instead exercising its constitutional mandate to determine public accountability in an impeachment proceeding.

The court likewise overruled the defense's reliance on Section 270 of the NIRC, citing Supreme Court jurisprudence that the provision does not prohibit the production of income tax returns.

At the same time, it acknowledged that Section 71 of the tax code limits the inspection of taxpayer records to specific circumstances, including presidential authorization.

The impeachment court stressed, however, that issuing a subpoena does not itself authorize disclosure of tax records. Instead, it directed the BIR Commissioner to make the appropriate return to the court, where any claimed statutory restrictions can be addressed before the documents are received or admitted into evidence.

The court said the defense would remain free to challenge the relevance, authenticity, materiality and admissibility of any records that may later be produced.

The BIR Commissioner, the concerned banking institutions and the AMLC were directed to submit the requested records or their respective returns to the impeachment court on July 30 at 9 a.m. Counsel for both parties were likewise ordered to appear for the inspection, comparison, photocopying and marking of any documents that may be produced.