Senate court’s first crucial test

Senate court’s first crucial test To open or not to open is the big question that senator-judges are set to answer today and this consequential decision could determine the fate of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial and the ultimate verdict. At the heart of the matter are two motions of the House prosecution panel for the impeachment court to subpoena the financial records of the Vice President and her husband, Manases Carpio, from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) and the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). These records are in relation to the fourth article of impeachment, which charges Duterte with amassing wealth disproportionate to her lawful income, failure to disclose her assets, and failure to divest from business interests as required by law. During last week’s oral arguments, the prosecution and defense focused on whether to open a cardboard box from the BIR containing the income tax returns of Duterte and her husband, which were previously submitted to the House justice committee during its clarificatory hearings. Power to scrutinize Defense lawyer Michael Poa invoked the confidentiality of bank records and the right of the Vice President to due process in opposing the motions. He argued that the prosecution—in requesting her bank and tax records from as far back as 2007, when she was not an impeachable official—was engaged in a “fishing expedition” meant to belatedly discover incriminating evidence against her. Poa also warned that opening AMLC and BIR records would force government officials to violate bank secrecy laws, as well as the privacy of the VP’s husband, who is a private citizen. “[T]he prosecution has repeatedly invoked accountability. We agree with them. No one is above the law, but in the same manner, no one must fall below or be outside the protection of the law,” he said. The prosecution argued that accountability must prevail over confidentiality, pointing out that bank secrecy does not apply to impeachment cases. The impeachment court, it pointed out, has the power to scrutinize Duterte’s financial records and statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth to determine whether she is fit to remain in office. “This power comes directly from the Constitution. No one–no person, no law, and no administrative rule–can limit or supersede it. Nothing and no one can handcuff this Court’s power to try and decide this impeachment case,” Akbayan Party-list Rep. Chel Diokno, who argued for the prosecution, said. Most compelling argument Diokno justified the motion to subpoena bank records since 2007, when Duterte was still Davao City vice mayor, noting that transactions “increased significantly” that year, rising to P208.15 million. The transactions intensified between 2009 and 2013, with annual totals exceeding P400 million, while there were “notable peaks” in transactions amounting to P704.93 million in 2009, P648.58 million in 2010, and P597.15 million in 2011. The court must have a “clear picture” of Duterte as a public servant for it to determine if she is unfit to continue in office, Diokno said. “Confidentiality … should not be the prevailing principle in this proceeding. The truth is not confidential,” he added. Perhaps Diokno’s most compelling argument is his invocation of a precedent in the 2012 impeachment trial of then Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona, when the impeachment court ordered that his bank and tax records be entered into evidence, leading to his conviction. Diokno pointed out that it was Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero, now the presiding judge in Duterte’s trial, who asked whether Corona’s tax records before he became chief justice must be considered. Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano was the one who argued that records of Corona’s initial bank deposits before he became a magistrate be presented, Diokno pointed out. Cautionary tale This precedent would undoubtedly weigh on the minds of the current senator-judges, eight of whom were part of the impeachment court during the Corona trial. The senator-judges deferred their vote on the case at hand for today, citing the need to study the “complicated issues” raised during the oral arguments. Yet, the path forward is clear. A precedent has been set, and the cautionary tale of the “second envelope” during the 2001 failed impeachment trial of then-President Joseph Estrada is still fresh in the public’s memory. A crucial test awaits the Senate impeachment court. Will the court, this early in the trial when the prosecution hasn’t even finished presenting its witnesses for the first article of impeachment, block the issuance of subpoenas for crucial documents needed to shed light on the grave charges against the Vice President? Or will it use its extraordinary powers to rightfully hold the highest officials accountable for violating their oath? The image of the green BIR box has already been ingrained in the imagination of Filipinos. Its mere existence invites more than just the curiosity of ordinary people, but the courage of those trusted with the mandate to see what truth lies inside.