House prosecutor and Akbayan Party-list Representative Chel Diokno on Monday defended the prosecution’s request to subpoena the bank records of Vice President Sara Duterte and her husband, Atty. Manases Carpio, arguing that the documents are necessary to establish the full extent of their financial transactions in relation to the allegation of unexplained wealth under Article II of the impeachment complaint.
Diokno clarified during the seventh day of the Senate impeachment trial after Senator-judge Joel Villanueva questioned whether the prosecution’s request could be considered a "fishing expedition" or an overly broad search for evidence without sufficient basis.
Villanueva asked the prosecution to explain how the requested records were directly related to the articles of impeachment and not merely an attempt to uncover possible evidence.
“Maaari po ba ninyong ipaliwanag kung paano ninyo tiniyak na ang hinihingi ng mga records ay hindi po simpleng paghahanap lamang ng posibleng ebidensya o tinatawag na fishing expedition, kundi ito po ay mga particular na dokumento na sa tingin po ninyo ay may malinaw at direct na kaugnayan dito sa mga articles of impeachment,” Villanueva said.
Responding to the question, Diokno stressed that the subpoena request specifically pertains to Article II, which alleges unexplained wealth on the part of the vice president.
“Ang hinihiling po namin sa subpoena ay kaugnay sa Article II, which involves charges of unexplained wealth,” Diokno said.
He explained that Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) and Income Tax Returns (ITRs) provide only limited snapshots of a public official’s financial standing and cannot, by themselves, determine whether wealth was lawfully acquired.
“Ang SALN po kasi ay parang snapshot lang po iyan... Ang ITR din po ay parang short video lang po iyan ng mga transaksyon ng isang taxpayer sa kabuuan ng taon. Makikita lang po natin ang buong larawan pag nailabas natin ang mga bank records,” he said.
Diokno added that bank records would allow the impeachment court to examine day-to-day financial transactions, providing a more complete picture of income, assets, and liabilities.
“Kasi doon po, yung day-to-day na lumabas at pumasok sa isang account ay mabubuo po natin,” he explained.
The House prosecutor also cited Supreme Court jurisprudence, particularly the case of DOF Rips v. Merensilia, which emphasized the importance of determining a public official’s complete financial profile before concluding whether unexplained wealth exists.
Quoting the ruling, Diokno said the Supreme Court previously faulted investigators for failing to consider an official’s total net worth and all possible sources of income.
“The failure of the complainant to take into consideration respondent Rafael's net worth from the time he entered government service and the failure to take into consideration all of his possible sources of income... do not support the conclusion that he has unexplained wealth,” Diokno quoted from the decision.
He said the prosecution seeks to avoid a similar deficiency by requesting the Vice President’s bank records, BIR records, and Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) documents.
“We want to see the entire picture. Kaya po namin hinihingi ang BIR records, pati ang mga bank records, and even the Anti-Money Laundering Council records, para makita po natin ang buong story,” Diokno said.
The exchange came before the Senate impeachment court later granted the prosecution’s request to subpoena the financial records, ruling that the documents are relevant and material to the allegation of unexplained wealth and do not constitute a fishing expedition.
