MANILA — The Senate impeachment court has ruled that Vice President Sara Duterte-Carpio cannot be compelled to admit ownership of bank accounts subpoenaed in her impeachment trial, saying procedural rules cannot override her constitutional right against self-incrimination.
Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero announced the ruling Tuesday, sustaining Duterte-Carpio’s objection to the House prosecution panel’s request for admission covering her bank records and other matters.
“The impeachment court, therefore, rules that respondent cannot be required to serve a written response to the request for admission,” Escudero said.
The ruling came even after the prosecution withdrew its original request and instead proposed that both sides stipulate on the authenticity of the bank documents.
The original request covered 104 separate matters involving Duterte-Carpio’s personal circumstances, previous government positions, her husband’s business interests and bank records subpoenaed for the proceedings.
Despite the withdrawal, the impeachment court proceeded to resolve the legal issue because of its implications for the succeeding stages of the trial.
Escudero said Duterte-Carpio’s refusal to answer the request cannot be considered an admission.
“The respondent’s objection to the application of Rule 26 is sustained. Respondent need not answer the request for admission and her failure to answer shall not be deemed an admission,” Escudero said.
The court, however, rejected the defense request to completely remove the prosecution’s request from the case record.
“However, her prayer to expunge the request is denied. The request, the objection, and this ruling shall remain in the record as part of the proceedings but with the admonition and reminder to senator-judges that the request for admission shall have no evidentiary, factual, or prejudicial effect against the respondent,” he added.
Escudero cited the constitutional protection against self-incrimination, saying Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure cannot override Section 17, Article III of the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be compelled to testify against themselves.
“Being part of the Bill of Rights, the right against self-incrimination remains protected even under impeachment process as held in Duterte v. House of Representatives,” Escudero said.
He also cited jurisprudence holding that requiring a respondent to answer questions involving material facts could effectively compel that person to testify against themselves.
Escudero noted that responses to requests for admission are made under oath, potentially exposing a respondent to perjury liability and creating another form of compulsion.
While acknowledging the prosecution’s attempt to streamline the proceedings, he stressed that efficiency cannot supersede constitutional protections.
“While the impeachment court welcomes the prosecution’s desire to narrow the issues for trial, identify matters genuinely in dispute, and avoid unnecessary proof of uncontroverted matters, any such measure to expedite the proceedings must always yield to the protection of the substantial rights of the respondent under the Constitution,” he said.
Escudero also emphasized that discovery procedures cannot substitute for the prosecution’s obligation to establish its allegations through competent evidence.
“The prosecution cannot shift its burden of proof to the respondent through the simple expedience of a request for admission,” Escudero said.
He likewise rejected the argument that constitutional safeguards do not apply because impeachment proceedings are not criminal prosecutions.
“Gutierrez v. House of Representatives … explains that impeachment is analogous to a criminal trial. Although it is not a criminal prosecution,” he said.
Before withdrawing its request, the prosecution had sought an agreement that the bank accounts exist, that the financial institutions submitted the records in compliance with subpoenas issued by the impeachment court, and that the documents are authentic copies of records maintained by the banks.
The prosecution is presenting evidence on the second article of impeachment, which accuses Duterte-Carpio of accumulating unexplained wealth through alleged omissions or inaccuracies in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and alleged failure to divest from business interests while serving as vice president.
Prosecutors sought the subpoenaed bank records as part of their evidence supporting those allegations./PN
