The Senate impeachment court has granted subpoenas for bank, Anti-Money Laundering Council, and tax records linked to Vice President Sara Duterte, her husband Manases Carpio, Carpio Lawyers, and several companies connected to them.
Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero, reading the court’s ruling on Monday, July 20, said the requested records were sufficiently identified and had an initial connection to Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.
The bank subpoenas are limited to peso-denominated accounts.
The court also approved requests involving 19 corporate entities and Carpio Lawyers.
Requests involving JTC Group of Companies (Philippines), Inc. and Pikimong Pikimong Philippines Corporation were denied after the court found that the prosecution had not established a sufficient initial connection between the two companies and either Duterte or Carpio.
The impeachment court also granted subpoenas for relevant Anti-Money Laundering Council records involving Duterte, Carpio, and the entities covered by the ruling.
The defense had argued that confidentiality provisions under the Anti-Money Laundering Act prevented the AMLC from complying with the impeachment court’s compulsory processes.
Escudero rejected that argument.
He said the confidentiality provision cited by the defense regulates unauthorized disclosures by AMLC personnel but does not remove the subpoena power of the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.
The court also addressed objections to obtaining financial records covering years before Duterte became vice president in 2022.
Escudero allowed the production of older records, but placed limits on how prosecutors may use them.
Those records may be examined to establish Duterte’s financial baseline and capacity before and during her present term. They cannot be used as a route to introduce separate impeachment accusations outside the Articles of Impeachment already before the court.
The ruling also draws a clear line between obtaining the documents and admitting them as evidence.
The subpoenas authorize the production of the records. Prosecutors must still establish their relevance, admissibility, and connection to Article II before relying on them during the trial.
The court also allowed the examination of financial records held separately and jointly by Duterte and Carpio.
Escudero said Carpio’s records may be examined because, without proof of a different marital property arrangement, the applicable legal presumption allows the court to consider property and financial interests that may form part of the couple’s marital property regime.
A separate subpoena covering relevant tax records connected to Duterte was also granted.
The release and use of those records remain subject to legal restrictions on tax confidentiality.
The ruling gives prosecutors access to financial information they sought in connection with Article II, but it does not establish that the records contain evidence of unexplained wealth or wrongdoing.
That question remains for the trial.
Prosecutors must still show what the documents contain, establish which records may be admitted as evidence, and demonstrate how they relate to the allegations already before the impeachment court.
Escudero’s ruling therefore gives the prosecution access to the records while placing boundaries on what those records can be used to prove.
The subpoenas open the documents to examination.
They do not decide the case.