By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA — The possible appearance of lawyer Manases “Mans” Carpio as a witness in the Senate impeachment trial of his wife, Vice President Sara Duterte, could test the limits of the constitutional right against self-incrimination, according to a House impeachment adviser.
Bicol Saro Party-list Rep. Terry Ridon said Sunday that Carpio may not be able to invoke the same protection Duterte has cited in refusing to participate in the proceedings if prosecutors question him about financial records relevant to the allegations against the Vice President.
“So, if the vice president, for example, will insist on her right against self-incrimination, I don’t think Attorney Carpio can actually raise that same particular point,” Ridon said during the “Saturday News Forum” in Quezon City.
The issue has emerged as prosecutors prepare to present evidence under Article 2 of Duterte’s impeachment complaint, which accuses her of unexplained wealth and failure to fully disclose properties and financial interests in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth.
Ridon said Carpio could have information relevant to the prosecution’s case because financial interests and properties held by spouses may be connected to the couple’s overall assets.
The prosecution has obtained subpoenaed bank and tax records involving Duterte, Carpio and companies associated with them. These documents are expected to be examined alongside the Vice President’s declared assets and interests.
According to Ridon, any questioning of Carpio would center on the couple’s financial holdings, properties and corporate interests that could bear on the allegations being heard by the impeachment court.
The possibility of calling Carpio follows the prosecution’s earlier disclosure that he was being considered as a potential hostile witness.
But no formal decision has been made to place him on the prosecution’s witness list.
If prosecutors seek his testimony, the matter would have to be taken up by the Senate sitting as an impeachment court. Any claim by Carpio that a particular question violates his constitutional rights would likewise have to be resolved within the proceedings.
The distinction between Duterte and Carpio is significant: while the Vice President is the respondent in the impeachment case, Carpio would potentially appear as a witness whose testimony could be sought in examining financial records relevant to the allegations.
The prosecution is expected to use documentary and testimonial evidence to establish its claims under Article 2. Whether Carpio will ultimately be required to testify, and what questions he may be compelled to answer, remains for the impeachment court to determine.
ia/xf
