Lawyers representing Vice President Sara Duterte maintained before the Senate impeachment court on Monday, July 20, that her Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) documents are protected from forced disclosure, noting that the Anti-Money Laundering Act contains no exceptions for impeachment trials.
The argument arose on the trial’s seventh day as senator-judges deliberated on a prosecution request to subpoena Duterte’s bank records, tax returns, and AMLC files. The prosecution is seeking the documents to back allegations of unexplained wealth detailed in Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.
Responding to queries from Senator Joel Villanueva, defense spokesperson and counsel Atty. Michael Poa explained that while the impeachment court is rooted in the Constitution, it remains bound by statutory laws protecting AMLC confidentiality.
”While the impeachment court is a constitutional creation, it cannot go over and above the Constitution itself… Section 8-A, at least for our position, is an absolute prohibition,” Poa said.
“Unlike the Bank Secrecy Law, where impeachment is an exception, Section 8-A does not provide one. If we were to compel and issue a subpoena against these AMLC records, we’re actually compelling the officials to violate this very section of the law,” he added.
Section 8-A of the Anti-Money Laundering Act mandates that the AMLC and its Secretariat secure all data in their custody, strictly banning the disclosure of information gathered during their tenure, even after they separate from the agency. It also directs the council to implement strict protocols for the management, storage, and sharing of confidential files.
Villanueva pressed the defense on whether this nondisclosure clause offers an impenetrable shield against court-issued subpoenas, and inquired if holding executive sessions could adequately protect the sensitive financial data.
Duterte’s legal team, however, countered that forcing the production of these records without an explicit legislative exemption would be tantamount to writing a new provision into the law.
On the other side, Akbayan Party-list Representative Chel Diokno, speaking for the prosecution, argued that reviewing the Vice President’s financial history is crucial to painting an accurate picture of her economic standing regarding the charges.
Diokno argued that the request for subpoenas was “not only relevant but also necessary and proportionate under the circumstances,” emphasizing that the defense would still be free to contest the admissibility of any documents once they are formally presented as evidence.
He further noted that assessing financial data dating back to before Duterte took office as vice president would give the impeachment court vital context regarding her financial history.
Diokno also pointed out that the privacy mandates in Section 8-A were designed to halt unauthorized leaks by AMLC employees.
“It was never intended to prevent subpoenas coming from courts, including the impeachment court,” he said.