Senate Defers Financial Subpoena Ruling In Duterte Trial

Photo via Inquirer.net on Google

The Senate impeachment trial of Vice President (V.P.) Sara Duterte transitioned into a high-stakes legal battle this week, shifting away from emotional witness testimonies to focus on a critical dispute over her private financial records.

Senator-judges heard intense oral arguments on whether to subpoena the Vice President’s bank accounts, tax returns, and Anti-Money Laundering Council (A.M.L.C.) documents. These records are central to Article II of the Articles of Impeachment, which accuses V.P. Duterte of harboring unexplained wealth and undeclared assets.

With both sides digging in, the impeachment court deferred its highly anticipated ruling on the subpoena until Monday, July 20, stating it required more time to deliberate the complex legal issues raised.

The prosecution team argued that accessing these financial records is a vital necessity, calling them the “smoking gun” needed to prove the unexplained wealth allegations. 

Conversely, Duterte’s defense team fiercely opposed the move, labeling the request a “fishing expedition” that directly violates the Vice President’s constitutional rights to confidentiality and due process.

Streamlining the “Grave Threats” Case

Aside from the financial tug-of-war, the prosecution spent the week tightening its case under Article IV, which charges the V.P. with making grave threats.

The prosecution decided to aggressively streamline its witness list. They dropped several high-profile personalities including Duterte’s chief of staff, Zuleika Lopez, along with various corroborative witnesses, court sheriffs, and reporters explaining that their testimonies had become redundant.

The prosecution now rests its Article IV case on the shoulders of just one remaining witness: National Bureau of Investigation (N.B.I.) Director Melvin Matibag, who is scheduled to take the stand on Tuesday, July 21.

This decision followed the exhaustive testimony of N.B.I.  Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc. Over his days on the stand, Mr. Lotoc testified that Duterte’s publicly declared threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former Speaker Martin Romualdez were “serious, real, and actual.”

While Mr. Lotoc conceded during a rigorous cross-examination by the defense that he had no personal knowledge of Duterte actually hiring an active hitman, he maintained that the N.B.I.’s formal investigation directly linked her to a genuine threat. Mr. Lotoc asserted that the statements were criminal in nature and therefore stripped of free-speech protections.

Political Tremors Outside the Courtroom

As the trial played out inside the Senate chamber, several parallel developments sent shockwaves through the political landscape:

The SEA Games Friction

A newly launched N.B.I. investigation into alleged funding irregularities surrounding the 2019 SEA Games sports complex drew sharp rebukes from Senator-Judges Alan Peter and Pia Cayetano. The siblings publicly questioned the sudden timing of the probe. 

While the Department of Justice and Malacañang defended the N.B.I., insisting the investigation was purely evidence-based and completely detached from the trial, the issue has revived the controversial “kaldero” (cauldron) funding debate.

The Marcos Waiver Requirement

Senator Panfilo Lacson threw a wrench into the prosecution’s financial hunt, declaring he would vote against opening Duterte’s tax records unless they obtained written authorization from President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. 

Meanwhile, Malacañang expressed heavy skepticism that the V.P. would ever voluntarily sign a waiver to open her accounts.

A Win for Free Speech

In a timely development, the Supreme Court dismissed indirect contempt charges against political analyst Richard Heydarian, Akbayan Representative Perci Cendaña, and Presidential Adviser Larry Gadon. 

The High Court ruled that their fierce public commentaries regarding the ongoing impeachment proceedings were protected political speech.

What’s Next?

Court spokesperson Reginald Tongol clarified to the public that deciding on the financial subpoena requires only a simple majority of the senator-judges present on July 20. 

He cautioned observers not to equate this upcoming vote with a final vote for conviction or acquittal.

Furthermore, once the subpoena issue is settled, the trial is set to enter a new phase. The prosecution has already announced its first three witnesses for Article I, which will tackle the highly controversial alleged misuse of the Vice President’s confidential funds.