House Prosecutors: Cayetano’s Objection Will Not Stop Subpoenas for VP Sara Duterte’s Financial Records

House prosecutors on Tuesday maintained that Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano’s reported objection to the impeachment court’s decision ordering subpoenas for Vice President Sara Duterte’s financial records does not invalidate or suspend the ruling, stressing that under Senate impeachment rules, a dissenting opinion alone cannot overturn an order unless the full impeachment court votes to reverse it.

MANILA, Philippines — House prosecutors said Tuesday that Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano’s reported objection to the impeachment court’s decision to subpoena the financial records of Vice President Sara Duterte does not automatically reverse or cancel the ruling.

During a press conference, House prosecutor Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” Diokno and legal counsel Atty. Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr. explained that while every senator-judge has the right to disagree with a ruling, simply filing an objection does not change the impeachment court’s decision.

Diokno said that under the Senate’s impeachment rules, any senator-judge may express a different opinion if they believe a ruling is incorrect. However, he said the prosecution has not yet received Cayetano’s formal written opinion and would wait to review it before issuing a detailed response.

“We want to understand the views of our fellow senator-judges,” Diokno said. “Once the opinion has officially been submitted, we will carefully study its legal basis.”

Tolosa likewise emphasized that while dissent is part of the legal process, it does not automatically overturn a decision that has already been issued by the impeachment court.

“He has the right to dissent, but that does not change the ruling. The ruling remains in effect,” Tolosa said.

On Monday, the impeachment court approved the prosecution’s request to issue subpoenas for several financial and tax records connected to Vice President Duterte.

The approved requests include selected peso-denominated bank records, documents from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), and records from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Prosecutors sought the documents to support the second article of impeachment, which alleges that Duterte possesses unexplained wealth and that there are inconsistencies between her declared assets and her financial activities.

However, the court did not grant all of the prosecution’s requests.

It denied requests involving foreign-currency bank deposits, which are protected under separate laws, and also rejected subpoenas involving two entities after finding insufficient evidence linking them to the allegations.

The court further ruled that financial records dating before Duterte assumed office as vice president may only be used to establish a financial “baseline.” Any evidence presented must still be directly related to the allegations covering her current term in office.

Under the Senate’s impeachment rules, decisions made by the presiding officer automatically become the ruling of the impeachment court unless a senator-judge formally objects and asks that the matter be decided through a vote of the entire Senate sitting as an impeachment court.

Tolosa said this procedure was clearly explained during Monday’s proceedings.

“The presiding officer can issue a ruling, and it stands unless someone objects and requests that the Senate vote on it,” he said.

The impeachment court has ordered the concerned banks, the AMLC, and the BIR to submit the requested records or their official responses to the court clerk by July 30.

The AMLC documents will first undergo an in-camera review, meaning the judges will examine the records privately before deciding whether any of them may be presented in open court.

Meanwhile, although the court issued a subpoena to the BIR, this does not automatically make Vice President Duterte’s confidential tax records public. The subpoena only authorizes the court to obtain and review the requested documents in accordance with existing legal procedures.

House prosecutors stressed that the subpoenas are simply tools for gathering evidence and should not be interpreted as proof of wrongdoing.

The court’s order does not establish that the allegations against Vice President Duterte are true. Instead, it allows the impeachment court to examine relevant documents as it determines whether the accusations under Article II of the impeachment complaint are supported by sufficient evidence.

The defense will still have the opportunity to challenge the relevance, interpretation, and admissibility of the records during the impeachment trial.

As the proceedings continue, both the prosecution and the defense are expected to present arguments on whether the financial documents support or contradict the allegations against the vice president. The impeachment court will ultimately determine which pieces of evidence may be admitted and considered before reaching its final judgment.