Financial records surfaced during the House justice committee’s impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte are not protected from disclosure, House Senior Deputy Minority Leader Leila de Lima said Sunday, pushing back against threats of criminal complaints from Duterte’s camp.
De Lima, a former Justice Secretary and senator, said impeachment cases occupy a unique legal category — sui generis — that places them outside the reach of the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law.
“Cases of impeachment, being sui generis, are not covered by the prohibition under the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law,” she said.
The clarification came after Duterte’s husband, lawyer Manases “Mans” Carpio, announced plans to file criminal complaints Monday against officials of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, the Anti-Money Laundering Council, and several House justice committee members, including De Lima. His legal team named BSP Governor Eli Remolona Jr., AMLC Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura, and committee Reps. Gerville Luistro, Percival Cendaña, and Chel Diokno as among those facing allegations of violating the Anti-Money Laundering Act, bank secrecy laws, and the Data Privacy Act.
De Lima said she would wait for a formal copy of the complaint before responding in detail, but maintained that Carpio is within his rights to file. She stressed, however, that the committee had subpoenaed records of suspicious and covered transactions from the AMLC — not the underlying bank accounts themselves — and that banks are legally obligated under Republic Act 9160 to report suspicious transactions to the AMLC. That reporting, she noted, is explicitly exempted from bank secrecy restrictions.
“The prohibition on disclosure applies only to officers and employees of banks and banking institutions,” De Lima said, adding that evidence of ill-gotten wealth emerging from impeachment hearings carries no criminal liability on the part of those conducting the proceedings.
“The fact that evidence of ill-gotten wealth was exposed in the course of the impeachment proceedings does not make such exposure criminal. It is a direct consequence of impeachment as an accountability mechanism,” she said.
At last week’s committee hearing, the AMLC confirmed that at least 18 bank transactions linked to the Vice President and family members matched covered and suspicious transaction reports cited in an affidavit by former senator Antonio Trillanes IV. The council also disclosed that Duterte was the subject of 27 suspicious transaction reports filed by covered institutions between August 2024 and January 2026, connected to suspected drug trafficking, graft and corruption, and malversation of public funds. Combined transactions under the names of Duterte and her husband from 2006 to 2025 reached P6.7 billion.
With an April 29 hearing looming, Manila 6th District Rep. Bienvenido Abante Jr., a co-endorser of one of the two impeachment complaints, urged the Vice President to appear before the panel in person.
“Sa akin naman, sinabi ko, it is better for the Vice President to attend, take an oath and answer all the allegations, instead of going to the media. Sapagka’t sa amin naman, kung wala ka namang itinatago, bakit ka matatakot mag-appear, ‘di ba?” Abante said.
He described Wednesday’s session as potentially the committee’s final opportunity to hear directly from Duterte before it moves to vote on probable cause.
Bicol Saro Rep. Terry Ridon, who chairs the House public accounts committee, said he believes probable cause against Duterte on grounds of betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution has already been established. A majority vote of 21 out of 39 committee members is needed to recommend impeachment and trigger the drafting of articles for transmittal to the House plenary.
“Sa Miyerkules, inaasahan natin ang botohan sa probable cause. Kapag positibo, aakyat na ito sa plenaryo, at inaasahan natin sa Mayo ang desisyon kung maipapadala ito sa Senado,” Ridon said.
