July 21, 2026
MANILA – The Senate impeachment court on Monday granted the House prosecution panel’s request to subpoena the financial records of Vice President Sara Duterte and her husband, Manases Carpio, and some of their businesses.
The prosecution sought the records in connection with allegations of unexplained wealth under Article II of the impeachment complaint against Duterte.
In granting the prosecution’s request to subpoena Duterte’s bank and tax records, Senate Impeachment Court Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero anchored the ruling based on the 2012 impeachment trial of then Chief Justice Renato Corona.
“The request for subpoenas directed to the concerned banking institutions, covering the accounts of the Respondent, Atty. Manases Carpio, separately or jointly, the partnership of Carpio Lawyers, and the nineteen listed corporate entities, is granted,” Escudero said.
The banks were directed to submit the documents to the Clerk of Court at 9:00 a.m. on July 30, 2026.
According to Escudero, the court found the requested documents “reasonably described, readily identifiable, and prima facie relevant and material to the allegations under Article II.”
“This is not the first time that bank records have been examined in an impeachment trial. During the impeachment trial of former Chief Justice Corona, the Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court, granted the Prosecution’s request for the production of bank records,” the presiding officer added.
The court allowed records from 2007 to 2021, rejecting the defense’s argument that these are “prior term” records, but clarified that they may only be used to establish a baseline and not to introduce new impeachable offenses.
The court also allowed examination of the bank records of Duterte’s husband, Manases Carpio, saying their financial records are relevant because spouses are required to disclose assets under RA 6713.
In the ruling, Escudero clarified that the subpoenas granted by the court would apply only to “peso-denominated accounts relevant to Article II.”
“Foreign-currency deposits are excluded, absent the written consent of the respective depositors,” he pointed out.
Concerning the bank records held separately or jointly by the vice president and her husband, the court also approved the requested subpoena, citing a law which clearly requires public officials to disclose their assets, including those of their spouses.
The court likewise granted the requests directed to the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) covering Duterte and other parties mentioned earlier.
“To prevent the unwarranted exposure of sensitive AMLC methodologies,” the court directed the submission of requested documents “strictly in camera” to the presiding officer through the clerk of court at 9:00 am, also on July 30, 2026.
Meanwhile, the court denied the request of the prosecution team pertaining to JTC Group of Companies and Pikimong Pikimong Philippines Corporation “for failing to establish prima facie relevance.”
“Their General Information Sheets do not identify the Respondent or her spouse as shareholders, and the Prosecution, at this time, failed to show either a direct business interest or a clear and convincing basis to disregard their separate juridical personalities,” Escudero said.
On Duterte’s tax records, the court also found the requested documents prima facie relevant and material to the allegations under Article II.
“In view of the foregoing, the request for the issuance of a subpoena directed to Commissioner Charlito Martin R. Mendoza of the Bureau of Internal Revenue is hereby granted,” he said.
Mendoza was directed to comply with the court order by 9:00 am, also on July 30, 2026.
As to the records of the JTC Group of Companies and Pikimong Pikimong Philippines Corporation, the court again denied the request for a subpoena also “for failure to satisfy the requirement of prima facie relevance.”
“The prosecution’s request is for the whole truth to come out, so that this Court may know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and make its decisions based on that,” Akbayan Party-list Rep. Chel Diokno, a member of the prosecution panel, told the impeachment court on July 17.
To justify their request, Diokno cited the Corona case, in which the court accepted the same requested documents as evidence.
“From what I have gathered and read, your honors, please, this is not the first time this Court has been confronted with this issue,” he said.
“In the impeachment trial of former Chief Justice Renato Corona, this Court admitted evidence gathered even before he assumed office as Chief Justice,” he added.
In Duterte’s case, the prosecution sought financial records spanning almost two decades, dating as far back as 2007 when she was still vice mayor of Davao City.
“From 2007 to 2013, according to AMLC records, her financial activity exceeded P3 billion [P3,020,460,347.20],” the lawmaker said.
Duterte was Davao City vice mayor from 2007 to 2010 and city mayor from 2010 to 2013.
But the vice president’s lawyers objected to the prosecutor’s request, calling it a “fishing expedition.”
READ: Tax, bank records subpoena may be fishing expedition – Sara Duterte camp
Defense lawyer Michael Poa noted that when the impeachment complaints were filed in the House of Representatives against the vice president, not a single financial transaction record was attached to support the allegation that Duterte had amassed unexplained wealth.
“Your honors, in our legal system, it is not permitted to accuse now and then just look for proof later on. That is not how due process works. We should not allow that,” Poa said.
The defense team also argued that the prosecution panel’s request was “fatally overbroad.”
“Again, your honors, those are not my words. Those are the words of the Supreme Court in Duterte vs the House of Representatives. That is controlling, and that is the law of the land. Yet here your honor, today the prosecution is requesting for documents spanning almost two decades, almost 20 years, dating as far back as 2007,” he further said.
Poa, however, argued that Duterte was not yet an impeachable officer during the period covered by the prosecutors’ request. —With a report from April Benjamin /dp /atm