On April 22, the House Committee on Justice held its third meeting regarding the impeachment complaints against Vice-President Sara Duterte. Previous hearings were held on March 25 and April 14. The committee aims to conclude hearings by April 29, after tackling accusations of confidential fund misuse and alleged unexplained wealth. Following the House Committee on Justice’s hearings on the impeachment complaints against Ms. Duterte, the panel will vote on whether to find the complaints sufficient in form and substance, leading to a likely vote on probable cause. If passed, the articles of impeachment will be transmitted to the Senate for a formal trial (congress.gov.ph).
Committee on Justice chair and Batangas 2nd District Rep. Gerville Luistro said that the April 22 hearing was the forensic truth phase, with the hearing centered on statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth, and Bureau of Internal Revenue and Anti-Money Laundering Council records rather than oral testimony, the Philippine News Agency reported. The impeachment hearing against Ms. Duterte that day lasted for nearly nine hours, livestreamed on the internet.
The Justice panel ordered the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), to obtain records related to the alleged threats made by Ms. Duterte against President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez; to the Office of the Ombudsman for Ms. Duterte’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN); to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) for income tax returns and related records from 2007 to 2025, of Ms. Duterte, her spouse Manases “Mans” Carpio, and identified business entities; to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for general information sheets and audited financial statements of several firms linked to Ms. Duterte and her family to verify ownership and financial activity; and to Commission on Audit (CoA) official Gloria Camora to testify and produce liquidation reports, disbursement vouchers, certifications, and related submissions of the Office of the Vice-President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd) in connection with the alleged misuse of confidential funds.
The panel also ordered the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) to provide and authenticate civil registry documents, including birth, marriage, and death records for individuals listed in OVP and DepEd submissions to verify the identities of recipients of confidential funds. Subpoenas were also ordered for the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) and former Sen. Antonio Trillanes to attend and submit documents for the April 22 impeachment hearing (gmanews, April 21).
From congress.gov.ph: “These subpoenas form part of the committee’s evidence-gathering process on the two remaining impeachment complaints against the Vice-President, which were earlier found sufficient in form, substance, and grounds.”
And so, on April 22, the Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla, later replaced by Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano; Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura of AMLC; BIR Commissioner Charlie Mendoza; and Mr. Trillanes came to the House Justice Committee impeachment hearing to expound upon their submissions in response to the subpoenas served on them by the House Justice Committee. (Ms. Duterte was absent from the hearing, even as Chair Luistro repeatedly asked the Committee Secretariat to loudly “call” her to the meeting at intervals during the session, for the record.)
The AMLC reported that billions of pesos worth of transactions linked to Ms. Duterte and her husband were flagged by banks (summary from inquirer.net, April 22). These transactions cover more than 600 dealings disclosed to the financial crimes task force. Banks flagged 33 suspicious transactions and 630 covered dealings worth P6.7 billion involving Ms. Duterte and her husband, AMLC Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura told lawmakers.
About P4.4 billion flowed into the accounts, P1.5 billion were transferred out, and around P791 million could not be classified as an inflow or outflow, according to the AMLC report presented to the House committee. The vice-president has not disclosed any cash holdings or bank deposits since 2018, according to her net worth statements.
Ms. Duterte’s bank accounts registered 371 large transactions and 30 suspicious transactions from 2005 to January 2026, with flagged cash flows “reaching as high as P55.15 million,” a summary of AMLC’s report showed. The flagged transactions totaled P6.7 billion, broken down into P3.7 billion linked to Ms. Duterte’s accounts and P2.9 billion to Mr. Carpio’s.
The AMLC also noted a marked increase in the historical trend of Ms. Duterte’s bank transactions, which surged to P208.1 million in 2007. The volume further intensified between 2009 and 2013, with annual totals averaging over P400 million. Specific figures included P704.9 million in 2009 and P597.1 million in 2011, while 2010 recorded P648.5 million.
The bulk of the transactions involved credit memos amounting to P1.4 billion, debit memos at P1 billion, and fund transfers totaling P521.8 million. This was followed by time deposit pre-terminations of P218.7 million and miscellaneous transactions of P209.2 million. Other transactions identified included time deposit placements and payments amounting to P109.1 million each, withdrawals totaling P62.7 million, and check deposits worth P48.3 million.
The Ombudsman confirmed to the committee that Ms. Duterte declared no cash on hand or bank deposits for six consecutive years, from 2019 to 2024, even as her net worth rose more than 10 times to P88.4 million in 2024 from a mere P7 million in 2007. “From 2019 to 2024, not even a single peso in cash was declared?” Manila Rep. Joel Chua asked Ombudsman lawyer Karen Batu. In earlier years, during her tenure as Davao City vice-mayor and mayor, Ms. Duterte declared cash on hand and bank deposits ranging from roughly P2 million to P4.3 million (inquirer.net, op.cit.).
Mr. Chua, a lawyer and member of the justice committee, noted that the bank transactions were not reflected in the vice-president’s SALNs. Bicol Saro Party-list Rep. Terry Ridon, also a member of the committee, noted a P50 million “gap” in earnings from the reported financial activity and her declared personal assets in the yearly figures of net worth as reflected in her SALNs since taking public office in 2007 (Ibid.).
The AMLC also confirmed that 19 of the bank transaction entries presented by Mr. Trillanes IV matched its own records on the same dates and amounts, including the P22 million Ms. Duterte had allegedly received from Samuel “Sammy” Uy, a purported drug lord and close business associate of the Duterte family (pna.gov.ph, April 25). However, Mr. Buenaventura said that the AMLC cannot divulge the nature of the transfers and where they were sent, but only whether there was a transfer of the same amount on the same date, which committee chair Ms. Luistro said is good enough (inquirer.net, April 22).
The SEC was asked to present and annotate the Duterte-Carpio income tax returns, the “general information sheet” (GIS), and the audited financial statements of the declared business establishments of the spouses, specifically looking for discrepancies between the Vice-President’s declared assets and her actual business interests. Confirmation of stockholdings in private entities, such as Metro City Chow was discussed. Rep. Jude Asidre counted at least 10 companies of the Carpio couple, as he asked about the discrepancies in the year-to-year GIS of these companies versus the listing in Ms. Duterte’s SALN. Why were there repeated yearly net losses in almost all of these companies? Why were there no GIS/FS filed by these companies in some years?
The SEC was asked to provide records that could confirm if the Vice-President failed to disclose cash-on-hand, bank deposits, or shares in corporations in her SALN between 2019 and 2024. Documents requested from the SEC were intended to be compared with bank transaction reports from the AMLC to identify any irregularities or non-disclosures. Questions focused on reconciling the sharp increase in the Vice-President’s net worth with her official income, using SEC filings to trace corporate ownership (pna.gov.ph). The SEC declined to divulge further personal information under the 1955 Bank Secrecy Law, R.A. 1405, “An Act prohibiting disclosure of or inquiry into deposits with any banking institution,” which was enacted to encourage individuals to deposit their money in banks instead of hoarding cash.
BIR Commissioner Charlito Martin “Charlie” R. Mendoza came to the Justice Committee hearing with a sealed box containing the documents asked for in the subpoena issued to the bureau. He declared ab initio that “We have submitted the documents subject to the condition that the same be examined in an executive session as provided by law,” citing Section 20(a) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). Bukidnon Rep. Keith Flores cited that the same section of the tax code specifies that the condition states that the divulgence of tax records should be “in aid of legislation.” Flores added: “For now, we are not in a congressional committee hearing, we are in an impeachment hearing, a clarificatory hearing for that matter. And since they are barred by the NIRC, then, I think, it would be prudent not to open the box,” Flores said.
“We will then take back the box,” Mr. Mendoza said. “No, you will not, we will keep the box,” Ms. Luistro said. She asked Mr. Mendoza to sign the sealed box on its four sides, which he did. The Justice Committee voted 24 Yes; four No; and zero abstentions to defer opening the sealed/signed BIR box of documents requested under the subpoena duces tecum.
If the House cannot open the box, can the Senate do so when it convenes as an impeachment court? “If we go by the provisions of the law, Madam Chair, then there is no basis as well for the disclosure… An impeachment proceeding or trial is not one of the exceptions,” the BIR’s Mr. Mendoza said. “This is such an absurd situation,” committee chairperson Luistro quipped (rappler.com, April 24).
How far are we from “the forensic truth”?
Amelia H. C. Ylagan is a doctor of Business Administration from the University of the Philippines.
