NATIONAL
Advocates Philippines
Diokno Defends Bid To Obtain Duterte Bank Records In Impeachment Trial
Screengrab from Senate PH
House prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno defended the prosecution's request to obtain bank records and Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) reports linked to Vice President Sara Duterte, arguing that evidence of alleged unexplained wealth acquired before she became vice president remains relevant to determining her fitness for public office.
During the first day of Duterte's impeachment trial on Monday, Diokno told the Senate impeachment court that there is no law or Supreme Court ruling prohibiting the use of pre-term evidence when it helps establish impeachable offenses allegedly committed during an official's current term.
The House prosecution panel is seeking subpoenas duces tecum for records from nine banks in Metro Manila and Davao that allegedly contain accounts maintained, opened, closed, controlled, beneficially owned or jointly held by Duterte and her husband, Manases Carpio.
The requested records cover bank accounts, deposits, investments, trusts, loans, safety deposit boxes and other financial transactions from Jan. 1, 2007 to Dec. 1, 2025.
The prosecution also asked the impeachment court to compel the AMLC to produce covered and suspicious transaction reports filed by banks and other financial institutions involving accounts allegedly linked to Duterte and Carpio.
The defense opposed the request, arguing that records predating Duterte's term as vice president should not be considered in the impeachment proceedings.
Diokno, however, said the Supreme Court's ruling in the Duterte v. House of Representatives case does not bar the presentation of such evidence.
“The decision and resolution of the Supreme Court in that case (Durterte v. House of Representatives) did not say any pre-term evidence is inadmissible. There is no statement like that at all in the entire decision and the resolution,” Diokno said.
Quoting the High Court's ruling, Diokno added:
“The basis of any charge must be for impeachable acts or omissions committed in relation to their office and during the current term of the impeachable officer.”
He argued that all four Articles of Impeachment involve acts allegedly committed while Duterte was already serving as vice president, including the allegation involving unexplained wealth.
“All of the articles in this particular case pertain to impeachable acts committed by the Vice President during her term as an impeachable officer, including unexplained wealth,” Diokno said.
According to Diokno, wealth allegedly accumulated before Duterte assumed the vice presidency may still be relevant because its benefits continue during her term in office.
“Because wealth of the magnitude of millions or billions ay meron pa din pakinabang yan ang Vice President kahit hanggang ngayon. It’s very clear that when a local government official for example who later becomes a national official amasses hundreds of millions, if not billions of pesos, then that benefit continues today,” Diokno said.
He maintained that integrity is a continuing qualification for holding public office and cannot be separated into different periods of a public official's career.
“Ang integrity hindi pwede biyakin ‘yan na kesa dati ay hindi ganun at ngayon ay may integridad na. It’s very clear that integrity is a continuing requirement of fitness of office,” Diokno said.
The Senate impeachment court has yet to rule on the prosecution's request for the bank records and AMLC documents, which the House panel says are necessary to support the article on alleged unexplained wealth.
During the first day of Duterte's impeachment trial on Monday, Diokno told the Senate impeachment court that there is no law or Supreme Court ruling prohibiting the use of pre-term evidence when it helps establish impeachable offenses allegedly committed during an official's current term.
The House prosecution panel is seeking subpoenas duces tecum for records from nine banks in Metro Manila and Davao that allegedly contain accounts maintained, opened, closed, controlled, beneficially owned or jointly held by Duterte and her husband, Manases Carpio.
The requested records cover bank accounts, deposits, investments, trusts, loans, safety deposit boxes and other financial transactions from Jan. 1, 2007 to Dec. 1, 2025.
The prosecution also asked the impeachment court to compel the AMLC to produce covered and suspicious transaction reports filed by banks and other financial institutions involving accounts allegedly linked to Duterte and Carpio.
The defense opposed the request, arguing that records predating Duterte's term as vice president should not be considered in the impeachment proceedings.
Diokno, however, said the Supreme Court's ruling in the Duterte v. House of Representatives case does not bar the presentation of such evidence.
“The decision and resolution of the Supreme Court in that case (Durterte v. House of Representatives) did not say any pre-term evidence is inadmissible. There is no statement like that at all in the entire decision and the resolution,” Diokno said.
Quoting the High Court's ruling, Diokno added:
“The basis of any charge must be for impeachable acts or omissions committed in relation to their office and during the current term of the impeachable officer.”
He argued that all four Articles of Impeachment involve acts allegedly committed while Duterte was already serving as vice president, including the allegation involving unexplained wealth.
“All of the articles in this particular case pertain to impeachable acts committed by the Vice President during her term as an impeachable officer, including unexplained wealth,” Diokno said.
According to Diokno, wealth allegedly accumulated before Duterte assumed the vice presidency may still be relevant because its benefits continue during her term in office.
“Because wealth of the magnitude of millions or billions ay meron pa din pakinabang yan ang Vice President kahit hanggang ngayon. It’s very clear that when a local government official for example who later becomes a national official amasses hundreds of millions, if not billions of pesos, then that benefit continues today,” Diokno said.
He maintained that integrity is a continuing qualification for holding public office and cannot be separated into different periods of a public official's career.
“Ang integrity hindi pwede biyakin ‘yan na kesa dati ay hindi ganun at ngayon ay may integridad na. It’s very clear that integrity is a continuing requirement of fitness of office,” Diokno said.
The Senate impeachment court has yet to rule on the prosecution's request for the bank records and AMLC documents, which the House panel says are necessary to support the article on alleged unexplained wealth.
Jul 6, 2026
We are dedicated storytellers with a passion for bringing your brand to life. Our services range from news and media features to brand promotion and collaborations.
Interested? Visit our
Contact Us page for more information. To learn more about what we offer, check out our latest article on services and opportunities.
