Sara Duterte trial: Carpio says bank records key to truth

VP Sara Duterte impeachment composite image from Inquirer files

MANILA, Philippines—The Filipino public has a right to know the truth, especially when it involves public officials facing allegations of misuse of confidential and intelligence funds.

This is why former Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio says the impeachment court, composed of senators sitting as judges, has the power to subpoena bank records—documents that may be key to proving or disproving claims made against Vice President Sara Duterte.

“The issue there, pinaka importante, yung pag subpoena ng bank records. Yun ang pinaka-importante, doon maglalabanan” Carpio told DZBB in an interview aired June 22, stressing that this power is vested in the impeachment court under the law and supported by precedent.

(The main issue there, the most important part, is the subpoena of the bank records. That’s the most crucial thing; that’s where the battle will be.)

Duterte is currently facing an impeachment trial over allegations of “high crimes,” including corruption and supposed involvement in an assassination plot against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., her former running mate.

Graphics by Ed Lustan/INQUIRER.net

Central to the complaint is her receipt and spending of ₱125 million in confidential and intelligence funds (CIFs) just 11 days after taking office in 2022, which lawmakers say violated fiscal protocols and accountability standards.

READ: Sara Duterte impeachment: What you need to know

In the face of unanswered questions about the Vice President’s use of funds, Carpio’s remarks revive a crucial point about accountability: bank records matter, and they can reveal a lot, as shown in a political controversy just a few years ago.

Trillanes vs Duterte: The billions that were never probed

During the 2016 election campaign, then Sen. Antonio “Sonny” Trillanes IV raised a striking allegation as reported by the Philippine Daily Inquirer: he claimed former Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte did not declare at least ₱211 million in a Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) account in his 2014 statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN).

READ: Trillanes: Duterte didn’t declare P211M in SALN

In response, Duterte initially dismissed the claim as false. “That’s garbage. Prove it,” he told reporters on April 27, 2016. His camp flatly denied the existence of the account at first, but their position changed after journalist Ellen Tordesillas posted on Facebook a photo of a deposit slip showing a joint account under the names of Rodrigo and Sara Duterte at BPI Julia Vargas.

The image quickly spread on social media, prompting Duterte’s team to admit that two accounts existed—but they insisted the balances were only in the “thousands.” Duterte also denied that it was a joint account with his daughter, Sara.

Trillanes then dared Duterte to sign a waiver allowing full scrutiny of his bank accounts and to file a libel case against him if the allegations were false.

However, Duterte countered that Trillanes should first execute an affidavit explaining how he obtained the documents and the purpose behind the allegations. He never signed the waiver, and the bank records were never released.

READ: WHAT WENT BEFORE: Trillanes vs Duterte

That same year, Trillanes publicly released documents and charts he claimed showed ₱2.4 billion in total deposits and fund transfers between 2006 and 2015 through multiple bank accounts allegedly linked to Duterte and his children.

READ: Duterte accounts had P2.4B in transactions

More than a year later, the Office of the Ombudsman confirmed it had found “sufficient basis” to initiate a preliminary investigation based on the complaint and documents submitted by Trillanes.

Despite the seriousness of the allegations, no formal charges were filed. The Duterte camp consistently dismissed the documents as fake and politically motivated, and no bank records were ever made public to prove or disprove the claim.

READ: Palace downplays Trillanes rehashed claim Duterte had over P2B

The controversy resurfaced years later during a November 2024 House quad committee hearing, when Trillanes presented ledgers and documents allegedly showing ₱2.4 billion deposited into joint accounts held by former President Duterte and Vice President Sara Duterte between 2011 and 2015.

In December 2024, VERA Files debunked viral posts falsely claiming that Duterte had been cleared of the allegations. Citing the House “quadcom” hearing held on November 27, VERA Files clarified that the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) neither verified the authenticity of the alleged bank records nor cleared Duterte.

The probe had simply stalled because Duterte never signed a bank secrecy waiver, which remains a key requirement for independent verification. To this day, the full extent of the alleged wealth remains unverified, sealed behind the country’s bank secrecy laws and Duterte’s silence.

Now, as calls grow for the Senate impeachment court to subpoena Vice President Sara Duterte’s bank records, Carpio insists this is where the truth lies.

READ: VP Sara Duterte’s bank records eyed in impeachment trial

If the Senate impeachment court exercises its power to subpoena bank records, it could help clarify key questions surrounding the confidential fund controversy involving the vice president, questions that, until now, remain unanswered due to the absence of publicly disclosed financial records.

The trial must proceed

As the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte hangs in legislative limbo, Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero—who also serves as presiding officer of the impeachment court—has repeatedly maintained that the Senate may vote to dismiss the complaint even before a full trial begins.

In a July 25 press conference, Escudero said the impeachment court could decide on such a motion by a simple majority vote, emphasizing that “everything is possible.”

“Simple majority is needed in all voting. Two-thirds are needed to convict and acquit. But it takes the question: If there’s already a simple majority to dismiss, for example, then it’s impossible to reach two-thirds, right?”

READ: Escudero: Impeachment court can junk Duterte case by majority vote

He made the remarks in response to questions on how the impeachment court would handle a potential motion to dismiss the case against Vice President Duterte, raising concerns from constitutionalists about whether this would effectively preempt a process that should, by law, move forward.

However, Carpio disagrees, stressing that the Senate has no discretion to abandon its constitutional duty once the House has transmitted the Articles of Impeachment.

According to Carpio, even if the Senate votes not to proceed with Duterte’s impeachment trial, it will not be the final word. That kind of decision, he explained, can be elevated to the Supreme Court, which holds the authority to compel the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty.

“Pag sinabi ng Senado na hindi kami tutuloy, yung prosecution aakyat sa Supreme Court,” he explained.

“Pag sinabi ng Supreme Court dapat ituloy, susunod—sigurado ako, hundred percent—susunod ang Senado,” he added.

(If the Senate says, ‘we won’t proceed,’ the prosecution will bring it to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court says it must continue, they will comply—I’m sure, one hundred percent—the Senate will comply.)

He clarified that the Supreme Court will only rule on the constitutionality of the Senate’s actions, not on whether the vice president is guilty or innocent.

“It’s a question of constitutionality, not about guilt or acquittal,” he said.

“So it’s the question whether, under the Constitution, they should continue—that’s the issue,” he added.

When asked whether refusing to conduct a trial would amount to a grave abuse of discretion, Carpio was firm.

“[T]hat will be a basis for the prosecution to go to the Supreme Court saying that the refusal to comply with its constitutional duty is a grave abuse,” he said in a mix of Filipino and English.

“They will tell the Senate to proceed in accordance with the Constitution,” he said, adding that “they have no choice. They will have to comply.”

He cited historical precedent, recalling how both chambers of Congress complied with judicial guidance during the impeachment of former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. “Sinunod naman ng House,” he added.

(The House followed.)

READ: IN THE KNOW: Supreme Court justices who faced impeachment complaints

Carpio underscored that the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, is constitutionally bound to conduct a trial once the House fulfills its role.

No skipping trial, no defying the Constitution

For Carpio, fears that the Senate may vote to abandon the impeachment case against the vice president are not without legal remedy, but they are also not the end of the process.

Carpio acknowledged that delays may happen, especially given the shifting political composition of the Senate. But even if a majority votes not to proceed with the trial, the matter does not end there.

If the Senate refuses to hold the trial, Carpio explained, the House prosecution panel may elevate the matter to the Supreme Court. And once the High Court rules that the trial must proceed, the Senate will have no choice but to comply.

He was unequivocal: “Walang question, susunod ang Senado.”

(No question, the Senate will comply.)

Asked whether the strong presence of pro-Sara senators in the 20th Congress could derail the process, Carpio dismissed the concern. Political alignment, he stressed, cannot override constitutional obligation.

“The Supreme Court is already the ‘supreme’ one—it’s not saying acquittal or conviction, it’s simply saying you have to continue because the Constitution states that the trial shall proceed forthwith,” he said in a mix of Filipino and English.

“So the Senate will comply. I don’t see any reason why the Senate of the 20th Congress would not comply. They will comply the moment the Supreme Court says, ‘the trial must proceed,” he added.

Carpio remains confident that a trial will take place.

“No, I’m sure there will be a trial. I’m sure there will be a trial.”

A ‘remand’ or a refusal to proceed?

During the interview, Carpio also explained that he doesn’t believe the Senate’s return of the impeachment case to the House of Representatives was constitutional grounds to halt the process, nor was it, strictly speaking, a “remand.”

“Well, they can do that, but I don’t think that will carry,” he said, referring to the possibility of repeating the motion to dismiss once the Senate reconvenes.

Carpio clarified that while senators used the term “remand,” what actually happened was the Senate’s request for certification, asking the House to confirm whether the one-year ban on multiple impeachment complaints was observed, and whether the next Congress still intends to pursue the case.

“Dahil ang actual naman, ginamit lang nila ang term na remand pero hindi naman talaga. Humingi lang sila ng certification [from the House], it’s not a remand. Mali ang term na gamit nila,” he said.

(They just used the term ‘remand,’ but that’s not really what happened. They only asked for a certification [from the House]; it’s not a remand. They used the wrong term.)

“They were just asking for a certification. They should have requested that from the prosecution, not from the House,” he added. “It is improper, but the House can—if it wants—send the certification to the prosecutors.”

Carpio also said the legal process should have been triggered by the defense, not the Senate.

“Well dapat, unang una, ang mag-raise ng issue, si Sara [Duterte], ’yung mga lawyers ni Sara,” he said. “Hindi pwede mag-abogado ’yung mga senador para kay Sara, that’s improper.”

(Well, first of all, the one who should raise the issue is Sara [Duterte], her lawyers. The senators can’t act as her lawyers—that’s improper.)

READ: ‘Not judges, but defenders’: Lawyers hit Senate’s return of Sara Duterte impeachment case

While the move, he added, does not violate the Constitution, it does raise concerns about impartiality among senator-judges.

“But that will not make the process unconstitutional. That’s just the… that’s a problem with the Senator-Judges who voted that way because it shows their bias, but it doesn’t make the process unconstitutional.”

Escudero, however, sees nothing improper about the move.

He has publicly disagreed with Carpio’s view that the Senate’s return of the Articles of Impeachment to the House was irregular.

“I respect his opinion, but I do not agree,” Escudero said in Filipino. “There are no limitations on what the impeachment court can or cannot decide.”

He argued that the Constitution grants the Senate the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment—and that no rule, including those of court or of the Senate, prevents a senator-judge from filing a motion like the one that delayed the trial.

“Any motion can be filed and voted on by the impeachment court,” Escudero said. “There are no limitations.”

READ: No limits on what impeachment court can or can’t decide — Escudero

The Senate formally convened as an impeachment court on June 10, only to vote hours later to send the case back to the House of Representatives.

Eighteen senators voted in favor of a motion originally filed by Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa and amended by Senator Alan Peter Cayetano to return the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte. Only five senators opposed the move.

The motion asked the House to clarify whether it had violated the constitutional one-year bar on filing more than one impeachment complaint, and whether the incoming 20th Congress would still pursue the case.

READ: Impeachment court sends Sara Duterte case back to House

To Carpio, the resulting uncertainty stems not from a flaw in the Constitution but from a legal gap—specifically, the absence of precedent on how swiftly the Senate must act after receiving the Articles of Impeachment.

“Talagang that’s the ano… this is a process dahil ’yung Senado hindi kaagad nag-conduct ng trial,” he said. “So ang labas dito, the Supreme Court will make a decision so that next time we will avoid this.”

(That’s really the thing… this is a process because the Senate didn’t immediately conduct the trial. So what will happen here is the Supreme Court will make a decision so that next time, we can avoid this.)

“First case ito eh. Tawag namin diyan, this is a case of first impression—gaano ba katagal, how fast should the Senate start the trial? Wala naman kasing nakasabi how many number of days. Nakalagay lang: ‘forthwith.’ So magde-decide ang Supreme Court. That will now govern for the future,” he continued.

(This is the first case of its kind. We call that a case of first impression—how soon, how fast should the Senate begin the trial? There’s no specific number of days stated. It only says: ‘forthwith.’ So the Supreme Court will decide, and that will serve as a guide moving forward.)

Follow how this historic trial unfolds: get the latest updates on INQUIRER.net’s special coverage: https://www.inquirer.net/446423/live-updates-minority-moves-to-initiate-sara-duterte-impeachment-trial

RELATED STORY:

Carpio: Sara Duterte risks waiving rights without response to court

If Senate junks impeach raps, House team will file SC petition – Bucoy