The House prosecution panel has welcomed the Senate impeachment court’s decision granting its requests to subpoena Vice President Sara Z. Duterte’s bank, financial and tax records, calling the ruling a victory not only for the prosecution but ultimately for truth, accountability and the Filipino people.

After the seventh day of the impeachment trial, House prosecution legal spokesperson lawyer Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr. explained that the impeachment court agreed that the panel had sufficiently shown the relevance and specificity of the documents it sought.

These motions covered the specified bank records, Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) and Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) records involving Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, Carpio Lawyers and 19 other entities.

“As we have seen, we’re pleased that the impeachment court through the presiding officer granted our twin motions for issuance of subpoena for the submission of the BIR documents, AMLAC records, and the bank records of the vice president and her husband and their financial interest,” Tolosa said during a press conference on Monday, July 20.

While the court granted the request for the bank and AMLC records, he noted that some limitations were still made.

These included exceptions involving foreign currency-denominated accounts and accounts related to JTC Group of Companies and Pikimong Pikimong Philippines Corporation.

House prosecutor and Mamamayang Liberal Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima described the ruling as “tagumpay ng katotohanan (victory of truth)” and “tagumpay ng pananagutan (victory of accountability),” saying it was equally a victory for the Senate impeachment court because it upheld its constitutional authority to compel the production of evidence.

“Hindi lang ito tagumpay ng prosecution o tagumpay ng defense, tagumpay din ito ng impeachment court (This is not just a victory for the prosecution or the defense, this is also a victory of the impeachment court),” De Lima said.

She explained that the ruling recognized that confidentiality provisions under existing laws, including those governing tax records and AMLC information, are not absolute and cannot override the impeachment court’s constitutional powers.

“So this is really a very good day for the prosecution because of the grant. Wala nang makakahadlang sa paghanap ng katotohanan (nothing now impedes the search for truth),” she added.

Deputy Speaker Paolo Ortega V of La Union echoed the prosecutors’ sentiments, calling the ruling “a big win for the madlang people.”

“Malaking panalo ‘to na makita ng tao ang lahat ng bank records at i-allow ito ng impeachment court (This is a big win for the people to see all the bank records that is now allowed by the impeachment court),” Ortega said.

Deputy Speaker and Iloilo Rep. Janette Garin, meanwhile, stressed that the ruling was not yet a judgment on the merits of the impeachment case but merely an order directing government agencies and financial institutions to produce the requested records for the court’s consideration.

The subpoenas form part of the prosecution’s evidence for Article II of the articles of impeachment, which alleges that Duterte accumulated unexplained wealth while serving in public office.

The ruling

The Senate impeachment court earlier granted the prosecution’s requests to subpoena specified bank, AMLC and BIR records involving Duterte, her husband, Carpio Lawyers and 19 identified entities.

Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero said the documents satisfied the relevancy and definiteness requirements for a subpoena duces tecum under Section 3, Rule 21 of the Rules of Court and were material to the allegations under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.

“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 II,” Escudero ruled.

Escudero noted that the Senate impeachment court had examined bank records during the trial of former Chief Justice Renato Corona.

“In granting that request, the court cited Section 2 of Republic Act 1405, which expressly recognizes cases of impeachment as an exception to the confidentiality of bank deposits and the rights to privacy of depositors,” he said.

The court overruled the defense’s objection to records covering 2007 to 2021. It authorized their production solely as a point of comparison for Duterte’s financial position during her present term—not to allege another independent impeachable offense arising from an earlier period.

“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,” Escudero said.

The court likewise overruled the defense’s objection to specified bank records held separately by Carpio and jointly with Duterte. Escudero cited Republic Act 6713, which requires public officials to disclose assets involving their spouses, and the Family Code provisions on absolute community of property in the absence of proof of a different property regime.

“Because Philippine civil law legally merges their assets, properties and income into a single absolute community, it is a legal and mathematical impossibility to determine the respondent’s true net worth or lawful income without examining the bank accounts of her husband,” Escudero said.

The court said examining Carpio’s records was a legal requirement for determining the couple’s aggregated wealth and that the Data Privacy Act did not provide a blanket bar against a lawful subpoena.

For the businesses identified by the prosecution, the court granted the requests involving 19 entities and Carpio Lawyers.

“The requests are granted with respect only to 19 corporate entities and the partnership. The respondent’s connection to these entities is prima facie shown by the General Information Sheets and Articles of Partnership, which have been premarked in evidence, and by her admitted SALNs from 2022 to 2025,” Escudero said.

“The request, therefore, is not considered a fishing expedition, and subpoenas may issue for their peso-denominated accounts strictly in relation to Article II,” he ruled.

The grants covered peso-denominated accounts. Foreign-currency deposits were excluded without the depositors’ written consent. Requests involving JTC Group of Companies and PIKIMONG PIKIMONG PHILIPPINES CORPORATION were denied for lack of a prima facie link.

“The request for issuance of subpoenas for the identified financial records pertaining to Carpio Lawyers is granted,” Escudero said.

On AMLC records, the court granted the prosecution’s request involving Duterte, Carpio, Carpio Lawyers and the 19 entities, rejecting the defense’s confidentiality objection.

“Section 8-A regulates unauthorized, arbitrary disclosures by AMLC personnel. It does not, and constitutionally cannot, nullify the lawful subpoena powers of the Senate sitting as an impeachment court,” Escudero ruled.

The court also rejected AMLC footnotes limiting reports to intelligence purposes, saying the impeachment court would determine their admissibility and weight.

“Because the requested suspicious transaction reports and covered transaction reports satisfy the threshold of prima facie relevance in tracing the alleged accumulation of unexplained wealth under Article II, they shall be produced,” he said.

AMLC was directed to submit the records through the clerk of court for Escudero’s in-camera review on July 30, 2026, at 9 a.m., before the court determines what may be given to the parties.

The court separately granted the subpoena directed to BIR Commissioner Charlito Martin Mendoza after finding that the specified tax records were also reasonably described, readily identifiable and prima facie relevant to Article II.

“Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, the request for issuance of subpoena directed to Commissioner Charlito Martin R. Mendoza of the BIR is hereby granted,” Escudero ruled.

The BIR commissioner was ordered to make the appropriate return through the clerk of court on July 30, 2026, at 9 a.m. The court would then determine whether any records could lawfully be produced under the National Internal Revenue Code.

“The issuance of a subpoena is merely a preliminary procedural step and does not by itself authorize the disclosure, inspection or admission of the requested tax records into evidence,” he said.PNA