Impeachment prosecution: Defense should quit fishing expedition claims

Akbayan party-list Rep. and Prosecution counsel Chel Diokno. INQUIRER PHOTO / NIÑO JESUS ORBETA MANILA, Philippines — Vice President Sara Duterte’s lawyers should stop claiming that the prosecution is engaged in a “fishing expedition” as the request for a subpoena — which was granted by the Senate Impeachment Court — targeted specific documents. During a press briefing on Tuesday, Atty. Benjamin Tolosa Jr. and Akbayan party-list Rep. Chel Diokno said that fishing expeditions only happen when one side seeks documents with a wishful thinking that these will reveal incriminating or damning evidence. However, Tolosa and Diokno said that the prosecution had a specific set of documents in their request — and that they knew the purpose for which this would be used. Article continues after this advertisement READ: Duterte impeachment trial: Senate junks bid vs AMLC report “We repeatedly heard the defense claiming that our request for these records was a mere fishing expedition only. Although this issue should have ended because this was effectively set aside by the impeachment court after it granted our request, we just want to stress that this is not a fishing expedition,” Tolosa, one of the counsels for the prosecution, said. “From the start, we have identified the specific accounts that we want to see. When we say that this is a fishing expedition, this means there is no basis, and you are only asking the court, for example, to look at a person’s bank accounts and hope that you accidentally spot evidence that you can use against that person,” he added. READ: Diokno counters Sara Duterte: Motion was to protect witness, evidence Diokno, one of the 11 House of Representatives prosecutors, said that a fishing expedition occurs when one seeks a subpoena “on the off chance that you find something.” Article continues after this advertisement “Let us compare the two situations: if we say that it’s a fishing expedition, this means that you want a document to be subpoenaed in the hopes that you will see usable evidence. In English, it’s on the off chance that you find something,” he explained. Tolosa and Diokno said that the prosecution’s request for a subpoena was specific: bank records of Duterte and her husband Manases Carpio, along with the accounts involved in the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) report. Article continues after this advertisement “What happened is far from a fishing expedition, because we know, from the testimony and documents presented by the AMLC executive director, we saw that the Vice President had financial transactions amounting to P6.7 billion, and we have specified the bank accounts with bank numbers, and even the branches where these involved bank accounts are located,” Tolosa said. “The request for a subpoena that we filed cannot be considered (a fishing expedition) because we knew that we had to get something. Our basis was what happened during the committee on justice hearings, especially the AMLC documents and the other witness presented regarding unexplained wealth allegations,” Diokno added. The defense’s fishing-expedition claim began with the first attempt to impeach Duterte and resurfaced during the March 2026 hearings of the House committee on justice on the two impeachment complaints against the vice president. After Diokno asked that the committee issue a subpoena on documents that may be vital to the hearings on the impeachment complaints, Duterte herself claimed that the request only “reinforces” her long-standing belief that there is “no sufficient evidence to warrant an impeachment case” against her. Eventually, subpoenas were still issued, and during the April 22 hearing of the committee on justice, AMLC Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura admitted that they had found covered and suspicious transactions involving the Duterte-Carpio couple. Buenaventura said that covered transactions are bank transactions over P500,000, which banks report to the council, while suspicious transactions refer to those whose amounts are not determined, but were reported by banks because there is something questionable in terms of how funds were sourced. Later that day, Buenaventura confirmed that 19 financial transactions of the Duterte-Carpio couple randomly picked by Mamamayang Liberal party-list Rep. Leila de Lima from former Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV’s sworn affidavit matched their records. When the prosecution requested that the Senate Impeachment Court issue a subpoena for the Duterte-Carpio couple’s bank documents and tax records, the defense called it a fishing expedition again. However, at the end of the trial on Monday, the Senate Impeachment Court granted the prosecution panel’s request to subpoena Duterte’s financial records, in connection with Article II of the Articles of Impeachment. Article II contains allegations that Duterte amassed unexplained wealth not mentioned in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth. According to the court, the records are prima facie relevant and material to Article II and are not a “fishing expedition” because they are intended to establish a factual baseline for assessing whether Duterte’s assets and financial transactions during her term are disproportionate to her lawful income. Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again. Your subscription has been successful. Furthermore, the court decided that the defense’s argument — that the AMLC is protected from a court’s compulsory processes — is misplaced. /mr