House prosecutor Akbayan Party-list Rep. Chel Diokno for the umpteenth time rejected the defense’s assertion that the subpoena request for Vice President Sara Duterte’s bank, tax, and Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) records was a “fishing expedition”.
In the continuation of the oral arguments Monday, July 20 on the topic of the prosecution panel’s subpoena request, Diokno underscored before the Senate impeachment court that such request were grounded on evidence already presented during the House panel inquiry on respondent Duterte’s impeachment complaints.
“Your Honors, the fishing expedition argument in our view is totally untenable,” Diokno said.
Diokno said the articles of impeachment already alleged the ultimate facts supporting the charge of unexplained wealth, while the succeeding pages detailed the evidentiary facts underlying those allegations.
The bank and tax records, which include those from the Vice President’s husband lawyer Manases Carpio, are said to be crucial in proving allegations of unexplained wealth against the respondent.
Diokno read the allegations contained in article II, which state that Duterte “committed culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayed the public trust” by allegedly amassing unexplained wealth disproportionate to her lawful income, failing to allegedly fully disclose assets and liabilities in her statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs) for 2022 to 2024, and failing to allegedly divest business interests during her tenure as Vice President.
“Ultimate facts are basically the essential factual elements that make up a party’s cause of action or defense,” Diokno said.
“In our case, we are alleging first of all, unexplained wealth. And based on the jurisprudence, the elements of unexplained wealth, the factual elements are: amassing unexplained wealth manifestly disproportionate to one’s lawful income and earnings, during one’s incumbency as a public official,” he noted.
“So na-satisfy po namin ‘yung requirement na pag-allege ng ultimate facts or essential factual elements sa tatlong bagay na po ito.”
(So we have satisfied the requirement of alleging the ultimate facts or essential factual elements in these three matters.)
Diokno said the prosecution’s request for additional financial records was based on evidence already on record, and not speculation as repeatedly claimed by the defense.
(The so-called fishing expedition is, for example, when there is a subpoena in the hope that we might find something.)
He pointed instead to testimony given before the House Committee on Justice by the AMLC executive director.
“Maalala po ninyo, during the hearings before the Committee on Justice, the executive director of the Anti-Money Laundering Council testified and produced documents showing that from 2007 up to the present, P6.7 billion ang dumaan po sa account ni Vice President Sara Duterte,” Diokno alleged.
(Remember, during the hearings before the Committee on Justice, the executive director of the Anti-Money Laundering Council testified and produced documents showing that from 2007 up to the present, P6.7 billion passed through the account of Vice President Sara Duterte.)
He added that the AMLC report also indicated that more than P3 billion allegedly passed through Duterte’s accounts from 2007 to 2013, when she served as mayor and vice mayor.
“We are not just guessing that there is something there, because the AMLC itself has confirmed that there were covered and suspicious transaction reports submitted to them in those amounts that I mentioned,” he said.
Diokno argued that Supreme Court (SC) rulings on unexplained wealth require examining a public official’s entire period of government service rather than isolated documents.
“To know whether a government official has amassed unexplained wealth, we must look at the entire incumbency of that official starting from day one; we look at their SALN, we look at all the income that he or she has earned both lawful and not, and from there we make a determination whether there was unexplained wealth or not,” he said.
‘Fruit of the poisonous tree’
Diokno also disputed the defense’s argument that AMLC records were barred under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine.
He said Section 8(a) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) was intended to prevent unauthorized disclosures by AMLC officials, not to bar compliance with court-issued subpoenas.
“Section 8(a) of the Anti-Money Laundering Law is really intended to prohibit or prevent leaks by officials of the [AMLC], but it was never intended to prevent subpoenas coming from courts, including the impeachment court,” Diokno said.
“Almost every week, the Sandiganbayan issues subpoenas for AMLC records, and despite what would appear to be a very categorical prohibition contained in that section, every time subpoenas are issued by the Sandiganbayan, they are honored by the AMLC and no one is questioning them.”
“Ganun din po itong impeachment court (It’s the same with this impeachment court). The subpoena issued by this impeachment court is for the purpose of determining accountability based on the power that is expressly given by the Constitution,” Diokno said.
“Ang amin pong paniwala is (Our belief is) that confidentiality cannot trump accountability,” he said.
