Defense says AMLA secrecy bars impeachment court from compelling VP Sara’s financial records

Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense argued that the Senate impeachment court cannot compel the release of her Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) records, insisting that the confidentiality provisions under the Anti-Money Laundering Act contain no exception for impeachment proceedings. Defense counsel Michael Poa made the argument on Monday, July 20, as senators questioned both parties on the prosecution’s motion seeking Duterte’s tax, bank, and AMLC records in connection with the allegation of unexplained wealth under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment. Responding to questions from Sen. Joel Villanueva, Poa maintained that while the impeachment court is created by the Constitution, it remains bound by existing laws governing the confidentiality of AMLC reports. “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 requires the AMLC and its Secretariat to “securely protect” information they receive or process and prohibits them from revealing “in any manner” any information known to them by reason of their office, even after they leave the agency. The law also directs the AMLC to formulate rules on the exchange, security, confidentiality, handling, storage, and access to such information. Villanueva raised whether the confidentiality rule creates an absolute privilege against a subpoena issued by the impeachment court and asked whether executive sessions or other safeguards could sufficiently protect sensitive financial information. The defense, however, maintained that allowing disclosure despite the absence of a statutory exception would amount to judicial legislation. Defense cites constitutional limits Poa said the defense was not objecting to transparency itself but argued that constitutional and statutory safeguards must still govern the proceedings. “We are not against transparency. We are not against accountability,” he said. “In the search for truth, transparency, accountability, we must still work within the limits imposed by the Constitution, the laws, and the rules of the land,” he added. Poa reiterated the defense’s earlier position that the prosecution’s request for Duterte’s financial records was overly broad and constituted a “fishing expedition.” Prosecution’s position For the prosecution, Congressman-prosecutor Chel Diokno argued that obtaining Duterte’s financial records is necessary to establish a complete financial baseline for the allegation of unexplained wealth. Diokno said the subpoena request is “not only relevant but also necessary and proportionate under the circumstances,” adding that the defense would still have the opportunity to challenge the admissibility of any documents if and when they are formally offered as evidence. He also argued that examining records covering the period before Duterte became vice president would provide the impeachment court with a complete picture of her financial circumstances. Diokno likewise said that Section 8-A of the Anti-Money Laundering Act is intended to prohibit or prevent leaks by officials of the AMLC. “It was never intended to prevent subpoenas coming from courts, including the impeachment court,” he said.