Senate needs VP financial docs to rule on unexplained wealth – Diokno

Rep. Chel Diokno, a member of the House prosecution —File photo MANILA, Philippines — The Senate impeachment court will need the bank and tax records of Vice President Sara Duterte so that it can decide whether she, as accused, has unexplained wealth, House prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno said on Monday. Responding to questions from Senator-judge Joel Villanueva, Diokno explained that Supreme Court jurisprudence requires authorities to examine the entire financial situation of a public official to determine whether unexplained wealth exists. “What we are asking in the subpoenas relates to Article 2 [of the articles of impeachment], which involves charges of unexplained wealth,” Diokno said in a mix of Filipino and English. Article continues after this advertisement “If we look at jurisprudence on unexplained wealth, it’s clear that the Supreme Court itself said that the entire picture must be seen — not only the SALN [statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth] of a public servant but also what he earned,” he added. Diokno explained that a SALN would give only a limited picture of an official’s finances. “A SALN is merely like a snapshot. The ITR [income tax return] is just like a short video. We can only see the entire picture when we have obtained bank records, because it’s in what goes in and out of an account that we can get that,” he said. To support the prosecution’s position, Diokno cited the Supreme Court ruling in DOF-Revenue Integrity Protection Service v. Merencilla, which faulted investigators for failing to examine the respondent’s complete financial circumstances. Reading from the decision, Diokno quoted: Article continues after this advertisement “The failure of the complainant to take into consideration respondent Rafael’s net worth from the time he entered government service and the failure to take into consideration all of his possible sources of income, in relation to his real and personal properties, do not support the conclusion that he has unexplained wealth, considering that his true net worth was not determined.” According to Diokno, the prosecution is relying on that same legal standard in seeking the subpoenaed records. Article continues after this advertisement “This is what the Supreme Court said [about the case]: ‘Ombudsman, you did not do your work.’ So that’s why we don’t want to be like the Ombudsman in this case. We want to see the entire picture,” he said. That, he went on, is why the prosecution is asking the impeachment court to compel the production of BIR, bank, and Anti-Money Laundering Council records. “That’s why we’re asking for the BIR records, along with the bank records, and even the Anti-Money Laundering Council records so we can see the whole story as far as both the assets, liabilities, and net worth are concerned, and the lawful, and if there is any, unlawful income, acquired by the respondent,” Diokno said. Later in the hearing, Diokno stressed that a subpoena is the only legal mechanism available for the impeachment court to obtain the documents, adding that questions on whether the records would ultimately be admitted into evidence can be resolved later. Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again. Your subscription has been successful. “A subpoena is the only way for the court to get the data, information, and documents that we need. The issue of admissibility will come later, and the defense will have sufficient opportunity to object and to oppose,” Diokno said. /atm