Duterte impeachment trial: Bank, AMLC documents admitted as prosecution evidence

MANILA — The Senate impeachment court has admitted as evidence several documents formally offered by the prosecution as it rejected the “fishing expedition” claim of Vice President Sara Duterte’s camp. 

In a Nov. 5 order signed by presiding officer Sen. Francis Escudero, the court said that documents subpoenaed during the impeachment trial “may supply evidentiary facts” in proving the unexplained wealth charge, pursuant to the power granted by the Constitution to the House of Representatives to impeach an official, and to the Senate to try and decide all impeachment cases. 

“The Court OVERRULES the continuing objection founded on the non-attachment of the offered exhibits to the Impeachment Complaints or Articles of Impeachment and on their acquisition through subpoenas during trial,” the order stated. 

“Any failure to attach documentary evidence to the initiating complaint or Articles does not, by itself, require rejection upon formal offer. Neither does mere description of resort to process or discovery as a ‘fishing expedition’ automatically create ground for excluding every subpoenaed document,” it added. 

The impeachment court admitted as prosecution evidence relevant documents from the Anti-Money Laundering Council, including covered and suspicious transaction reports linked to Duterte and her husband, as well as documents from various banks, insurance and investment companies, and the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

It also admitted as evidence Duterte’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth from 2007-2012, 2015-2025, and documents from the Philippine Statistics Authority, the Securities and Exchange Commission excluding the records of JTC Group of Companies Philippines, Inc. and Pikimong Pikimong Philippines Corporation, and documents from the financial forensic analyst excluding those relevant to JTC and Pikimong Pikimong. 

Also among the documents admitted by the Court as prosecution evidence are those from the Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System (PhilGEPS), the Philippine National Police Firearms and Explosives Office, and the Land Registration Authority. 

On the defense’s objection to the admission of evidence from before Duterte became Vice President, the Court said “assessing changes during that period requires a starting financial baseline”. 

The court, meanwhile, clarified that the admission of an exhibit only meant that it was “relevant and competent to be received for the Court’s resolution of Article II”. The said article accuses Duterte of having alleged unexplained wealth and prohibited business interests, as well as supposed failure to disclose all her assets in her SALNs. 

“Admission does not, ipso facto, establish the truth or accuracy of any such evidence, nor does it constitute an adoption by this Court of any conclusion of law framed by the Prosecution in its Formal Offer. The evidentiary weight and sufficiency of every admitted exhibit remain exclusively for the Senator-Judges to determine upon final deliberation,” the order stated. 

The impeachment court, meanwhile, reconsidered its previous decision to lift the sub judice rule on the three withdrawn impeachment articles.

“… the sub judice principle under Rule XVIII of the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials shall APPLY WITH EQUAL FORCE TO ALL ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, whether withdrawn or pending adjudication,” the order signed by Escudero stated.

On Wednesday, the court received a manifestation filed by Duterte’s camp, stating that she is not waiving Rule XVIII and that the court should maintain and enforce the sub judice rule to preserve the integrity of the proceedings and ensure that her constitutional rights are respected.