The Wire

The impeachment court has granted the prosecution's request for Internal Revenue records in the case against Vice President Sara Duterte, finding the documents "reasonably described, regulated and definable, and prima facie relevant" to charges under Article 2.

However, the court denied IR records for JTC Group of Companies, Philippine Sync, and Piquimong Philippine Corporation, ruling the prosecution failed to establish a factual link between these entities and either the respondent or her spouse.

The court has denied requests for financial records from Hongpikimong Philippines Corporation and entities within the JTC Group of Companies and PKMong Philippine Corporation, ruling they failed to establish prima facie relevance to the charges.

The court ruled that lawyer-client privilege cannot shield law firm financial records merely because the entity is a law partnership. The defense cannot invoke a "blanket immunity upon every financial record bearing the law firm's name."

Instead, the court said lawyers have "the legal right to assert a specific claim of privilege over a particular document" at the proper time—but no "generalized blanket indication of lawyer of attorney-client privilege" excuses compliance now. The ruling applies to Carpios Law Partnership records sought in the subpoena.

The Senate impeachment court has ruled that the Anti-Money Laundering Council's mandatory 5-year record retention period under AMLA regulations is not an absolute bar to producing documents lawfully subpoenaed in the VP Duterte case.

The court stated the minimum retention requirement is "not an absolute prohibition against keeping or producing all the records." The AMLC may invoke the limitation in its return to the subpoena, which the court will take into account when informing parties of compliance deadlines.

In dismissing the defense's confidentiality shield, the court cited Article 11, paragraph 6 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that a person acting in obedience to an order issued by a superior authority—such as a Senate impeachment court—would have a justifying circumstance that would extinguish any criminal penalty.

The ruling establishes that AMLC officers cannot be prosecuted for disclosing records in response to a lawful Senate subpoena, even under confidentiality statutes.

In a separate ruling, the court denied access to foreign currency deposits held by the respondent, her spouse, or any entities, citing a 2012 Supreme Court temporary restraining order in *PS Bank v. Senate*. The court said such accounts shall remain excluded 'until a written consent of their respective depositors is produced.' The ruling protects the deposits from compulsory disclosure — a distinct limitation on the financial records already granted.

The presiding officer ruled that absolute community of property — the default Philippine marital regime — makes it legally impossible to determine the respondent's net worth without examining her spouse's financial records. The court found that the spouse's bank records are not an 'unwarranted intrusion into third-party privacy' but a legal prerequisite to calculating aggregated household wealth under civil law. The defense's data privacy objection was overruled; the court cited Section 16B of the Data Privacy Act, which expressly excludes from protection information needed pursuant to a subpoena.

The court has overruled the defense's privacy objections to the spousal bank records of Attorney Manu Carpio, finding that under Philippine civil law's absolute community of property regime, examining his accounts is a legal prerequisite to determining the respondent's aggregated wealth.

Of the 21 listed corporate entities and partnerships the prosecution sought, the court granted access to 19, saying it is "an absolute legal prerequisite" to assessing unexplained wealth allegations. The court rejected the defense's reliance on data privacy law, citing Section 16B of the Data Privacy Act, which states the right to privacy does not apply when personal information is needed under a subpoena.

The court has clarified the scope and use of the 14-year bank record span (2007–2021) it previously authorized: the records will be used only to establish a factual baseline for comparing VP Duterte's asset growth against her lawful income, not to allege new independent impeachable offenses.

The court cited settled jurisprudence requiring courts to compare the officer's property acquisitions, salaries, benefits, and revenues from legitimate businesses to determine whether wealth is manifestly disproportionate. The court will assess whether any unexplained increase in net worth since her first day of government employment falls within the presumption of illicit enrichment under Republic Act 1379.

The defense counsel, citing Supreme Court guidelines, argued that the basis of any charge must be for impeachable acts or omissions committed in relation to their office — meaning in relation to their impeachable office and during the current term of the officer.

Counsel submitted copies of a Supreme Court primer on impeachment to the Senator Judges, stating the court intended to "clarify the guidelines on impeachment proceedings" and that the 6th point specifically addresses what constitutes an impeachable offense.

The defense rejects the prosecution's characterization of the Verde v. Chowar ruling as obiter dicta (incidental commentary). Defense counsel states: "it is our theory that when the Supreme Court decided the case of the Verde versus Chowar, the point that one year bar was triggered, especially because there was a violation of due process." The defense argues the Court's impeachment guidelines were central to its decision, not peripheral — a distinction that could affect how broadly the current charges can be applied.

Returning from a five-minute recess, defense counsel restated their core legal position: the Supreme Court's Verde v. Chowar decision was not merely obiter dicta (incidental remarks) but binding precedent that triggered the one-year bar against the charges.

'It is our theory that when the Supreme Court decided the case of the Verde versus H. Chowar,' the defense said, 'the point that one year bar was triggered, especially because there was a violation of due process.' The defense noted that Senior Associate Justice Mark Lonen had written the decision 'painstakingly,' and cited language suggesting the Court 'wanted to clarify the guidelines on impeachment proceedings.'

The defense counsel cited Supreme Court precedent requiring prosecutors to measure unexplained wealth by examining "all the income that person has amassed" and determining "whether it is manifestly disproportionate to the lawful income that he has reported."

The specification of "lawful income reported" signals the defense is contesting the prosecution's calculation of the 6.7 billion pesos in unexplained wealth — the central numerical claim in the case.

The defense counsel mounted a new argument on the scope of the unexplained wealth allegations against VP Duterte, contending that investigators must examine all income amassed from the first day of any public service, not only assets accumulated while holding an impeachable office.

"Integrity cannot be divided in people," the counsel argued, using a hypothetical: a person who entered government at age 20 could face liability for wealth accumulated across decades of service, even if some was earned in non-impeachable positions. The argument appears designed to broaden the temporal scope of the prosecution's case — or conversely, to challenge whether the current charges properly account for the full history of the VP's public service.

Defense counsel is arguing that a key statement in Interactive v. House of Representatives — that charges must relate to acts during an officer's term — is merely obiter dicta (an incidental remark, not binding law), not the ruling itself.

The distinction matters: if true, it would allow the prosecution to present evidence of unexplained wealth accumulated *before* VP Duterte took office. A Senator Judge pressed the point: "You believe that the statement that the act must be committed during the term of the impeachable officer is not the law of the land. It's obiter dicta."

Defense replied the court's actual basis was narrower — that charges must "relate to" the officer's term, which "does not rule out the presentation of evidence of acts committed before."

Defense counsel elaborated on the allegation that prosecution conducted a "fishing expedition" by producing evidence after the defense had already filed its answer. A counsel in a white barong tagalog explained the legal standard: "when the party requesting information does not know what might be produced, and just as an off chance tries to use that instrument in order to gain evidence that may be used against the other party." The defense has argued the subpoenas for documents were issued after their answer was filed, making the process improper.

The respondent's counsel alleged that the prosecution presented documents and subpoena requests only *after* the defense had already filed its answer, then sought additional evidence hoping to find support for unexplained wealth allegations. "This only shows… that they cannot support the allegations," the counsel argued, characterizing the broad document requests as a "fishing expedition" — casting a wide net hoping something will stick. The defense contends the prosecution has produced no factual basis for the core charge.

The allegation goes to the procedural fairness of the impeachment proceedings: the defense says it was asked to answer charges before the full evidentiary case was made.

The House Prosecution Panel says it is investigating seven bank accounts linked to Vice President Sara Duterte, according to remarks at a House of Representatives press conference on 20 July 2026. The accounts include joint accounts with the Vice President's husband, Attorney Manskarpio, and accounts in which they hold financial interests in companies, a prosecutor said. "All of this bank accounts are based on the Amlak reports that were submitted by the Executive Director of Amlak," the prosecutor stated, referring to suspicious transaction reports and coverage transaction reports filed by the anti-money laundering authority.

The prosecutor said the investigation covers "not just the amounts, but the specific bank accounts and the branches" involved in financial transactions, with deposits and withdrawals tracked "over the course of months or years." When asked whether any accounts are jointly owned by the Vice President and other individuals beyond her husband, the prosecutor said they would need to verify those details but confirmed "they involve the vice president."

A member of the House Prosecution Panel said the impeachment court has constitutional authority to issue a subpoena for the vice president's tax records without requiring presidential consent. The prosecutor argued that "the Constitution grants that the Impeachment Court [has] the sole authority to decide and try impeachment proceedings" and that this power is sufficient for the Bureau of Internal Revenue to release the records. The panel said it is not seeking the president's intervention on the matter, citing the impeachment court's "extraordinary power" under the Constitution. The panel is awaiting a ruling on its pending subpoena request.

MMDA General Manager Nicholas Torre III outlined the penalty structure for traffic violations detected by the agency's AI cameras. Color coding violations carry a 500-peso fine, while bus lane violations range from 5,000 to 20,000 pesos depending on whether it is a first, second or third offence. Seatbelt violations carry penalties of 1,000, 2,000 and 5,000 pesos, respectively, for first, second and third breaches. Torre said violators can contest citations through an online portal or pay fines, with unpaid violations potentially accumulating to 200,000 to 300,000 pesos.

Nicholas Torre III, MMDA General Manager, says the agency's AI-powered traffic enforcement system is capturing between 7,000 and 8,000 photographic frames daily. The images are then sent for human validation before tickets are issued. Torre said the most commonly detected violations are colour-coding violations (related to the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority's vehicle coding scheme), seatbelt non-compliance, and distracted or inattentive driving, followed by bus lane violations.

Nicolas Torre III, MMDA General Manager, says the agency removes 30 tons of garbage every day from waterways and pumping stations. "Every day 30 tons from the waterways and popping stations because it is 12,000 tons per year or 1000 tons per month," Torre said. This daily extraction is part of routine maintenance to keep the drainage system functioning, he said.