The fight over Sara Duterte’s bank and tax records, explained

Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!

Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.

Visit Suniway.ph to learn

MANILA, Philippines – To examine whether Vice President Sara Duterte accumulated wealth she failed to disclose or could not explain, prosecutors want to compare what she declared in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN), what moved through bank accounts linked to her, and what income she reported to tax authorities.

Senator-judges are expected to continue deliberation on Monday, July 20, whether to issue subpoenas for the financial records of Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio.

The court held oral arguments on Wednesday, July 15, but emerged from a closed-door caucus lasting more than an hour without a ruling. The postponement suggests they haven’t reached a common position on whether the subpoenas are necessary fact-finding tools or an excessively broad “fishing expedition,” as Duterte’s defense argues.

What prosecutors want

The prosecution wants nine bank branches ordered to produce records relating to Duterte and Carpio, including accounts, deposits, investments, trusts, loans, safe-deposit boxes, and transactions allegedly maintained, controlled, beneficially owned, or held by the couple or their representatives, nominees, and signatories from 2007 to 2025.

It also wants the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) to turn over covered transaction reports and suspicious transaction reports involving the couple, along with related investigation documents and electronic database extracts. (LIST: Sara Duterte’s bank accounts, AMLC records covered by subpoena request)

The tax records are the subject of a separate subpoena request. During the House impeachment inquiry, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) produced a sealed box containing records involving Duterte, Carpio, and businesses linked to them.

The same box later traveled to the Senate before it was returned to the BIR unopened.

A subpoena would compel the BIR commissioner to appear and bring Duterte’s tax records, although separate presidential authority may still be required before they can be disclosed.

So, what are the obstacles standing in the prosecution’s way?

Obstacle 1: Getting Senate approval

Senator-judges must first authorize the subpoenas. Monday’s action could result in approval, rejection, or an order narrower than what prosecutors requested.

The defense says the proposed period extends years before Duterte became Vice President and sweeps in records involving her spouse, businesses, representatives, and nominees without sufficient specificity.

Prosecutors counter that allegedly undisclosed wealth accumulated earlier could continue benefiting an impeachable official, and that integrity is a continuing qualification for public office.

If the motions are rejected, the banks, BIR, and AMLC would not be compelled under these requests to produce the material. But does that mean tax records are completely beyond reach? Perhaps not.

“The President’s authority under Section 71 of the Tax Code exists independently of a Senate subpoena. In principle, the BIR Commissioner could seek that authority if disclosure is legally warranted,” global tax policy expert Mon Abrea told Rappler.

Getting these records released is, of course, one thing. But their admissibility as evidence in an impeachment proceeding is another matter.

“However, whether those records would later be admitted as evidence in an impeachment trial is a separate matter for the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, to determine under the Constitution,” he added.

Obstacle 2: Getting the actual records

Even if the Senate approves both subpoena requests, bank and tax records won’t be equally easy to obtain.

The Bank Secrecy Law generally protects bank deposits but expressly provides an exception “in cases of impeachment.” Consequently, though requests may still face legal challenges, bank secrecy isn’t an absolute barrier during impeachment proceedings.

The Tax Code, by contrast, has no comparable impeachment exception. Section 270 imposes criminal penalties on BIR personnel who unlawfully disclose confidential taxpayer information, including imprisonment of two to five years, a fine, or both.

That gives BIR officials an even stronger reason to withhold records unless the legal basis for disclosure is crystal clear.

“The different treatment under the Bank Secrecy Law and the Tax Code is precisely why I believe Congress should revisit these laws,” Abrea told Rappler. “The Bank Secrecy Law expressly recognizes impeachment as an exception, while the Tax Code generally protects taxpayer confidentiality and, under Section 71, requires presidential authority before income tax returns may be opened for inspection.”

The closest precedent is the 2012 trial of then-chief justice Renato Corona. The Senate obtained tax information covering Corona, his wife, children, and son-in-law. It also examined bank records that senators later compared with his SALNs.

To obtain these, the Senate first subpoenaed then-BIR commissioner Kim Henares. She then sought and received authority from then-president Benigno Aquino III before producing the requested tax information.

In a recent interview on ANC’s Headstart, Henares said the same process could be followed in Duterte’s case, with the BIR commissioner needing to seek presidential authority before releasing the records.

“The BIR Commissioner still has to get the authority [from the President,]” Henares said in the interview. “Ngayon, kung hindi niya makuha ‘yung authority, pupunta siya sa Senado at sasabihin niya, hindi ako makaka-release kasi hindi ako binigyan ng authority ng Presidente. (Now, if they were unable to get authority, they will go to the Senate and say that they cannot release the records because they weren’t able to get authority from the President.)”

That could put President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in an awkward position. He has previously distanced himself and the executive department from the impeachment proceedings, saying, “I do not give guidance to Congress. We are independent of each other.”

But if the BIR commissioner seeks presidential authority to open Duterte’s tax records, Marcos may still be required to make a decision with direct consequences for the evidence available to the Senate.

Malacañang said on July 13 that no request had yet reached the President, but that any request would be studied before he decides what action to take.

Abrea agreed that the commissioner doesn’t have blanket discretion to release confidential tax records. But he cautioned against treating presidential authorization as the end of the legal question.

“The real issue is not whether President Marcos signs or refuses to sign,” Abrea told Rappler. “The real issue is whether the Constitution gives the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, powers that prevail over the statutory confidentiality of taxpayer records.”

Under the ordinary procedure set out in the Tax Code, presidential authority is required, Abrea said. But if the Senate insists that its constitutional powers as an impeachment court allow it to compel disclosure anyway, the dispute could become a constitutional question.

“If that conflict arises, the final answer should come from the Supreme Court — not from politics,” Abrea said.

Obstacle 3: Connecting the dots

Once the records have been released, the final and most important challenge would be proving the Vice President’s wealth is truly unexplained.

For example, bank and AMLC documents could reveal the amounts, dates, counterparties, and patterns behind transactions that prosecutors may want banks and witnesses to explain. But their existence doesn’t by itself establish that any wrongdoing was committed. Covered transactions may be reported because they exceed regulatory thresholds, while suspicious transactions could be flagged because of their circumstances, regardless of their value.

“Bank and tax records are among the most important pieces of the puzzle, but they are only part of the financial picture,” Abrea told Rappler.

“Investigators would typically compare tax returns, bank records, SALNs, property acquisitions, corporate interests, and other assets and liabilities to determine whether there is a substantial disparity between declared income and accumulated wealth. That was essentially the approach taken during the Corona impeachment,” he added.

Henares, who testified during the Corona trial, explained that each layer of evidence obtained would serve a different purpose for the prosecution.

“‘Yung SALN at ‘yung bank record, ang pinag-uusapan diyan is kompleto ba ‘yung sinabi mo sa SALN. So ngayon, naghahanap ka ng asset na hindi niya ni-report sa SALN,” Henares said during the Headstart interview.

(When it comes to the SALN and bank record, the question is whether what was declared in the SALN is complete. So now, you’re looking for assets that weren’t reported in the SALN.)

For instance, if bank records showed that total deposits exceed the amount declared in the SALN, prosecutors may have evidence of an inaccurate or incomplete SALN. A possible next step would be to compare this with income declared to the BIR.

“Ngayon dahil in-adjust mo ‘yung asset niya based on sa mga evidence mo, i-cocompare mo sa income na dineclare mo. Ngayon kung ‘yung income dineclare mo hindi ma-explain – kunwari ang dineclare mong income for the whole period is P20 million lang, biglang ang asset mo P1 billion – may difference siya. So, unexplained wealth ‘yan,” Henares added.

(Now because you adjusted the asset based on the evidence, you compare them with the declared income. If you can’t explain that declared income – for example, you only declared an income of P20 million for the whole, and your assets suddenly amount to P1 billion – then there’s a difference. That’s unexplained wealth.)

The analysis could become more complicated if Duterte argues that money in a joint or linked account belonged to her father, former president Rodrigo Duterte.

Henares said that once such a defense is formally raised, prosecutors would have a stronger basis to seek his SALNs and tax returns without it appearing to be a fishing expedition. Rodrigo Duterte’s detention in The Hague could also complicate efforts to obtain his testimony.

Monday’s decision is therefore just the first step in what could become a months-long journey to settle the unexplained-wealth charge. – Rappler.com