A HOUSE of Representatives prosecutor on Wednesday told the Senate Impeachment Court that the confidentiality provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (Amla) should not prevent the court from obtaining Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) records that may be relevant to the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte.
During oral arguments on the prosecution’s motion to issue subpoenae, House prosecutor Jose Manuel Diokno argued that AMLA’s confidentiality rules were intended to protect ongoing money laundering investigations and not to restrict a constitutionally mandated Impeachment Court from performing its duty.
‘While the law does contain a confidentiality clause, it was designed to prevent AMLC officials from leaking information to persons who are the subject of CTRs [Covered Transaction Reports] and STRs [Suspicious Transaction Reports] and preserve the integrity of investigations,’ he said.
According to Diokno, these constitutional powers cannot be limited by an interpretation of an ordinary law that would defeat the purpose of impeachment proceedings
‘Because this power comes directly from the Constitution, no one-no person, no law, and no administrative rule-can limit or supersede it,’ he said.
The prosecutor added the request for AMLC records is part of the panel’s effort to allow the court to decide the case based on a complete set of facts.
‘The prosecution’s request is to uncover the entire truth so that this Honorable Court may decide the case based on the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,’ he said.
He added that impeachment is ultimately about ensuring accountability to the Filipino people, which he said outweighs the personal interests of any public official facing charges.
Diokno said the AMLC reports, along with other documents being sought through subpoenas, would help the court fulfill its constitutional responsibility to decide the case based on all relevant evidence.
He told the court that financial records covering Duterte’s tenure as Davao City vice mayor and mayor are relevant to the allegations under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.
Diokno cited figures from an AMLC report submitted to the House Committee on Justice, which he said showed a significant increase in Duterte’s financial activity beginning in 2007.
‘According to the report of the Anti-Money Laundering Council submitted to the House Committee on Justice, the financial activity of Vice President Sara Z. Duterte increased significantly starting in 2007, when transaction values surged to P208.15 million,’ Diokno said.
He added that the AMLC report showed continued growth in financial transactions in succeeding years, with activity between 2009 and 2013 consistently exceeding P400 million.
The report, he said, recorded notable peaks in 2009 at P704.93 million, 2010 at P648.58 million, and 2011 at P597.15 million.
Diokno pointed out that the period covered by the AMLC figures coincided with Duterte’s service as a local government official in Davao City.
‘Vice President Sara served as Davao City vice mayor from 2007 to 2010 and as mayor from 2010 to 2013. From 2007 to 2013, according to AMLC records, her financial activity exceeded P3 billion, totaling P3,020,460,347.20,’ he said.
The prosecutor said the figures underscore the need for the court to obtain financial records from the period before Duterte became Vice President.
He said the records are relevant to Article II, which alleges that Duterte betrayed public trust and culpably violated the Constitution by allegedly accumulating unexplained wealth disproportionate to her lawful income.
He answered that the prosecution believes the connection is clear.
Diokno stressed that the prosecution was not asking the impeachment court to reach conclusions based solely on AMLC figures.
Instead, he said the panel is seeking access to the underlying bank records, AMLC reports, and tax documents so that the court can independently determine the facts before deciding the case.
Fishing expedition?
Diokno also cited a Supreme Court ruling that rejected the argument that seeking bank records in an unexplained wealth case constitutes a ‘fishing expedition.’
Diokno invoked the 2022 Supreme Court decision in Republic v Rabusa to counter the defense’s objections to the release of bank records, tax documents, and AMLC reports involving the Vice President and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio.
‘They have repeatedly claimed that what the prosecution is doing is a ‘fishing expedition.’ Actually, the Supreme Court has already issued a decision that squarely addresses this point,’ Diokno stressed.
The case involved a government forfeiture proceeding seeking the recovery of assets allegedly acquired by former military comptroller George Rabusa beyond his lawful income. The Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained from the examination of bank accounts could be considered in proceedings involving unexplained wealth.
‘Just like here, the prosecution in that case requested subpoenas for the production of bank records. Just like here, the argument was raised that this is a mere fishing expedition,’ Diokno pointed out.
Citing the ruling, Diokno explained that while lower courts initially viewed the request to examine bank accounts as an improper search for evidence, the Supreme Court held that unexplained wealth proceedings fall under exceptions to bank secrecy laws.
He quoted the court’s finding that proceedings involving unexplained wealth are covered by the exceptions under Republic Act 1405, allowing court orders that enable the examination of bank accounts in appropriate cases.
Diokno also rejected the defense’s argument that issuing subpoenas would violate VP Duterte’s right to due process, stressing that the prosecution is only seeking the production of documents that may later be presented as evidence.
Early access
FOR his part, prosecution legal spokesman lawyer Jay Tolosa said the prosecution is seeking early access to Duterte’s tax returns and bank records to prevent possible delays when it begins presenting evidence on the allegation of unexplained wealth.
Tolosa said the panel requested subpoenas for the documents at this stage of the impeachment trial even though Article of Impeachment No. 2 is scheduled to be presented last among the four charges.
Tolosa added prosecutors anticipated that the defense would challenge the release of the documents, prompting them to secure the subpoenas ahead of time.
‘Because we have already anticipated it…they will probably try to block it,’ he said, adding that the move would allow the prosecution to proceed with its evidence presentation without interruption once the trial reaches the unexplained wealth charge.
Prosecution spokesman Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong said obtaining the records early would also give senator-judges sufficient time to review the documents, which he described as both technical and voluminous.