MANILA — The House panel prosecuting Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment case said Tuesday that Senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano’s reported objection to the Senate impeachment court’s subpoena for Duterte’s financial documents has no immediate effect on the court’s ruling.
During a media briefing, Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” Diokno and House prosecutors’ legal counsel Atty. Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr. clarified that while members of the impeachment court may express dissent, doing so does not automatically reverse an approved order.
According to Diokno, the prosecution respects every senator-judge’s right to disagree under the Senate’s impeachment rules but will reserve comment until Cayetano’s written opinion is officially submitted.
“We would like to review the senator-judge’s reasoning once it is formally filed,” Diokno said.
Tolosa likewise explained that a dissenting opinion carries no immediate legal effect on an existing ruling.
“A senator-judge may disagree with the decision, but the ruling remains valid unless the court decides otherwise,” he said.
The Senate impeachment court on Monday authorized subpoenas for selected peso bank records, AMLC documents, and BIR records sought by the prosecution in relation to Article II of the impeachment complaint, which centers on allegations of unexplained wealth and discrepancies in Duterte’s financial disclosures.
The court, however, declined to include foreign currency deposits and rejected requests involving two entities after finding inadequate evidence linking them to the case. It also ruled that financial records predating Duterte’s term as vice president may only be used to establish a reference point for evaluating transactions made during her incumbency.
Tolosa noted that Senate impeachment procedures provide that decisions issued by the presiding officer automatically take effect unless a senator-judge formally objects and asks the chamber to vote on the matter.
The impeachment court ordered the banks concerned, the AMLC, and the BIR to submit the requested documents to the clerk of court no later than July 30.
The AMLC records will first be reviewed privately by the court, while the BIR subpoena does not authorize unrestricted access to confidential tax records.
Prosecutors also underscored that the subpoenas are intended solely to obtain documents for judicial review. They do not establish the truth of the impeachment allegations, automatically admit the records as evidence, or limit the defense’s right to challenge their admissibility, interpretation, or probative value.
elamigo/xf
