Diokno cites Corona subpoena in push to disclose Sara Duterte's bank records

Prosecutor Chel Diokno of Akbayan party-list reminded the Senate impeachment court that it issued a subpoena for the bank records of then Chief Justice Renato Corona during the latter’s 2012 impeachment trial.

Diokno cited the Corona impeachment trial to justify the prosecution's request for subpoenas seeking the bank and tax records of Vice President Sara Duterte, her husband, Manases Carpio, and their businesses.

The defense has argued that this is an overreach, since the subpoena being sought by the prosecutors covers years before the Vice President became an impeachable official in 2022.

“Sa impeachment ni dating Chief Justice Renato Corona, tinanggap ng hukumang ito ang mga ebidensyang nakalap bago pa man siya naupo bilang punong hukom. I believe it was then Senator-judge, now Presiding Officer Francis Escudero who raised the question: Will the impeachment court consider only Corona's acts as Chief Justice? This was after observing that some exhibits predated his appointment as Chief Justice. This matter was taken up in caucus after which this court decided to allow such evidence,” Diokno said.

He further explained, “When Philippine Savings Bank President Pascual Garcia III testified before this court in the same Corona trial, he refused to answer the question of then-Sen. Judge Franklin Drilon on the starting balance of Corona's two peso-denominated accounts. But, if I'm not mistaken, it was Senator Judge Alan Peter Cayetano who said that records of initial deposits are among the quote-unquote opening documents that should have been brought to the impeachment court. After reading the subpoena, Presiding Officer Senator Juan Ponce Enrile held that Senator Judge Cayetano's observation was correct."

Diokno said that the impeachment court then ordered the issuance of a subpoena to PS Bank Katipunan branch manager Annabel Tiongson to bring all the bank records of the Chief Justice, and that the same impeachment court denied the defense's motion to quash the subpoena for the peso bank accounts of Corona.

“The presiding officer explained that the purpose of the subpoena is to find out if Corona has not included the deposits in his SALN (Statement of Assets Liabilities and Net Worth). This court also denied the defense's motion to suppress evidence on Corona's bank accounts,” he said.

“Sa huli, binusisi ng hukumang ito ang bank records ni Chief Justice Corona mula sa kanyang unang balanse bago pa man siya naging punong mahistrado. The panel of prosecutors respectfully submits that the subpoenas for the production of the bank records, AMLA documents, and BRR documents of the Vice President and her husband are proper and should be issued by this honorable court,” he added.

(After all, this court thoroughly examined Chief Justice Corona's bank records, including the balances in his accounts before he assumed the post of Chief Justice.)

In a separate press conference, lead prosecutor and Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro said that Diokno’s argument is anchored on solid ground.

“There is a concrete basis for what Congressman Diokno said, because it is actually in the Senate rules themselves. If I am not mistaken, that is Rule 50, Section 136,” Luistro said.

“If there is no rule applicable to a specific case, legislative precedent must be applied. And what Cong. Chel was invoking what happened during the Corona impeachment trial, and the impeachment court allowed extensive discussion about pre-term documents. This pertains to acts or omissions which happened prior to becoming an impeachable official,” she added.

“By illustration, 2022 naging impeachable official [si Vice President Sara]. It means that documents pertaining to before 2022, our position, are still relevant,” Luistro added. —LDF, GMA News