VP Sara's bank records, SALN can be legally disclosed during trial —solon
Ridon said the disclosure is relevant to the fourth article of impeachment relating to the culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust, particularly the allegations of amassing unexplained wealth and failing to disclose all her properties and interests in properties in her SALN.
"The bank records will be examined to determine whether there exists a direct correspondence between her family's typical income and her bank deposits and other investments. It should be noted that former Chief Justice Renato Corona had been convicted on the basis of non-disclosure of several assets in his SALN," he explained.
The lawmaker said such disclosure is provided under the 2006 Supreme Court decision in the Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan case wherein the High Court ruled that the bank records of then President Joseph Ejercito can be disclosed during his Sandiganbayan plunder trial because of two exemptions provided under the Bank Secrecy Law.
These exemptions are that the examination of bank accounts is upon the order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, and that the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.
'That [Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan] is the right jurisprudence. Lahat po yan pwedeng buksan kapag nasa impeachment trial na po. The prosecution can request the SALN from the Ombudsman, the Vice President, and even the bank accounts...it can be asked from the banks,' Ridon said in a news forum.
'In fact, we can also ask the Anti-Money Laundering Council para sa record ng pagpasok at paglabas na pera,' he added.
However, the disclosure of these bank deposits and the SALN ultimately rests on the Senate impeachment court, which will vote once a motion for disclosure is put forward by the prosecutors.
'To be very clear, the motions will be subject to a vote by the Senate, so we'd like to manage expectations. The Senate can approve or deny requests for further information on bank accounts,' Ridon said.
Asked if the Senate would risk getting the ire of the public in the event it denies such requests for further information, Ridon said it is too early to say.
'We can't preempt how the public would react. But as an impeachment court, it is really the Senate that has the authority on that,' he added.
The Vice President's spokesperson, Ruth Castelo, earlier said that her boss is "ready" if the impeachment proceeds.
'The Vice President is ready, she's been saying that. And she's eager to be able to present her case or her evidence in the impeachment court so that once and for all, all doubts cast on her will go away. And that's what she wants,' Castelo said.
The impeachment case put forward by the House accuses Duterte of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes mainly due to alleged misuse of P612.5 million worth of confidential funds and for threatening to kill President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., his wife Liza, and his cousin, Speaker Martin Romualdez of Leyte. —LDF, GMA Integrated News
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
5 hours ago
- GMA Network
OCTA poll: 80% of Filipinos want VP Sara to face impeachment trial
Majority of Filipinos believe that Vice President Sara Duterte should face an impeachment trial to answer the charges against her, results of a survey conducted by OCTA Research showed. The July 2025 Tugon ng Masa (TNM) Survey, released on Sunday, showed that 80% of respondents answered in the affirmative when asked if they thought Duterte should face trial. There were 14% who disagreed, while the remaining 7% were undecided or refused to answer. Majority support for the trial was seen across all regions: 87% in the National Capital Region, 77% in balance Luzon, 92% in the Visayas, and 69% in Mindanao. This was also the case across socio-economic classes: 80% for Classes A, B, C, and D, and 78% for Class E. For those who agreed that Duterte should face the impeachment trial, the most commonly cited reason, with 59% of respondents, was that she should address the charges, clear her name, and prove herself worthy of her position. Other reasons include a belief in the charges with 21%, and the view that facing trial is necessary for her to remain eligible to run in the 2028 elections with 16%. Among those who opposed a trial, 44% said the issue is a political conflict between the camps of Duterte and President Ferdinand 'Bongbong' Marcos Jr., whom she ran alongside with in the 2022 national elections. Other cited a belief in her integrity and disbelief in the allegations with 33%, while 19% said she should focus instead on serving the nation. The survey fieldwork was conducted using face-to-face interviews from July 12 to July 17, 2025, a week before the Supreme Court released its decision declaring that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte as unconstitutional. SC spokesperson Camille Ting noted, however, that the SC is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her, but any subsequent impeachment complaint may only be filed starting February 6, 2026. The survey polled 1,200 male and female respondents aged 18 and above. It has a margin of error of ±3 % at a 95% confidence level. Subnational estimates carry a ±6% margin of error for Metro Manila, Balance Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. Out of the respondents, 97% said they have heard, read, or watched anything about the impeachment complaint, while 2% said they were unaware. The recent SC decision is in relation to the petition filed by Duterte and lawyer Israelito Torreon, among others, seeking to declare the Articles of Impeachment against her null and void Lawyer and Constitutional law expert Domingo 'Egon' Cayosa on Saturday said the Senate may still opt to proceed with the trial, as it may assert its 'exclusive power' with regard to impeachment matters. Three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024, all of which were connected with the alleged misuse of confidential funds. The fourth impeachment complaint, endorsed by over one-third of lawmakers from the House of Representatives, was later on transmitted to the Senate. Duterte, for her part, entered a 'not guilty' plea in the verified impeachment complaint filed against her, which she called merely a 'scrap of paper.' — BM, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
8 hours ago
- GMA Network
House to appeal SC ruling voiding Sara Duterte Articles of Impeachment
The House of Representatives is preparing to file a motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court's decision to void the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, arguing that the ruling was based on what it described as incorrect findings that contradict official records. In a video message released on Sunday, House of Representatives spokesperson Atty. Priscilla Marie 'Princess' Abante said the House has studied the SC decision, and found that the bases for it were alarming. 'Ang Kamara, matapos ang masusing pag-aaral, ay maghahain ng motion for reconsideration dahil ang desisyon na nagsasabing ang Articles of Impeachment na ipinadala sa Senado ay barred or unconstitutional ay nakaangkla sa mga factual premises o findings na mali at salungat sa opisyal na record ng Kamara,' she said. (The House, after thorough study, will file a motion for reconsideration because the decision declaring that the Articles of Impeachment transmitted to the Senate are barred or unconstitutional is based on factual premises or findings that are incorrect and contrary to the official records of the House.) This comes as the SC ruled unanimously to declare that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte as unconstitutional and imposing a one-year ban, as it said these violate the right to due process. SC spokesperson Atty. Camille Ting noted, however, that the SC is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her, but any subsequent impeachment complaint may only be filed starting February 6, 2026. According to Abante, the decision claimed that articles were transmitted to the Senate without a plenary vote, which she said was 'categorically false' and wrong, as she said the plenary voted on February 5, 2025, with at least a third of the House members, as detailed in House Journal 36. Abante also said the High Court wrongly claimed that the House did not act on the first three impeachment complaints, as she said these were acted on and were archived on the same day, prior to the chamber adjourning session. 'Ang pinakabatayang saligan ng desisyon kung saan umikot ang mga legal pronouncement ng Korte ay mali. Hindi isinama ang plenary vote, mali ang pagbasa sa timeline ng mga kilos ng Kamara, at mas pinaniwalaan ang isang news article kaysa sa House Journal at opisyal na record na isinumite mismo sa Korte,' she said. (The fundamental basis of the decision, on which the Court's legal pronouncements were anchored, is flawed. The plenary vote was excluded, the timeline of the House's actions was misread, and a news article was given more weight than the House Journal and official records that were submitted to the Court itself.) Abante likewise said the SC gave new rules that are not in the Constitution nor in the governing rules of the House of Representatives citing due process, even if the chamber followed previous rulings of the High Court. 'It should also be said, kung due process at opportunity to be heard ang usapan, ilang beses nang naimbitahan si Vice President Sara Duterte sa mga pagdinig ng Committee upang siya ay mabigyan ng pagkakataong ipaliwanag ang kaniyang panig, ngunit nananatili siyang tikom ang kaniyang bibig,' Abante said. (It should also be said that when it comes to due process and the opportunity to be heard, Vice President Sara Duterte was invited multiple times to the Committee hearings to give her a chance to explain her side, but she has consistently remained silent.) 'It is for these reasons the House will be filing a motion for reconsideration. We remain hopeful that once facts are corrected, the Court will arrive at a different and more just conclusion,' she added. Three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024, all of which were connected with the alleged misuse of confidential funds. The fourth impeachment complaint, endorsed by over one-third of lawmakers from the House of Representatives, was later on transmitted to the Senate. Duterte, for her part, entered a 'not guilty' plea in the verified impeachment complaint filed against her, which she called merely a 'scrap of paper.' — RF, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
8 hours ago
- GMA Network
Senate impeachment court to vote on whether to proceed with VP Sara trial
The Senate impeachment court is set to vote whether to proceed with the deliberations after receiving the Supreme Court's ruling on the Articles of Impeachment filed against Vice President Sara Duterte, its spokesperson said Sunday. According to Senate Impeachment Court spokesperson Regie Tongol, the body received the email transmittal of the SC decision on Friday evening, July 25, 2025, and will vote on it moving forward. 'Yes, as part of the usual deliberative process of any collegial body based on Senate rules,' he said in a Viber message to reporters over the weekend. This comes as the SC ruled unanimously to declare that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte as unconstitutional and violate the right to due process. SC spokesperson Camille Ting noted, however, that the SC is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her, but any subsequent impeachment complaint may only be filed starting February 6, 2026. The decision is in relation to the petition filed by Duterte and lawyer Israelito Torreon, among others, seeking to declare the Artiles of Impeachment against her null and void Following the announcement of the decision, Tongol said the Senate Impeachment Court is 'duty-bound' to respect the finality of rulings issued by High Court. 'The Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court, has always acted in deference to the Constitution and the rule of law. As a co-equal branch of government, we are duty-bound to respect the finality of rulings issued by the High Court,' he said then. Senators have since aired contrasting opinions on the decision, with some saying the Senate can still choose to proceed with the trial. Lawyer and Constitutional law expert Domingo 'Egon' Cayosa on Saturday said the Senate may still opt to proceed with the trial, as it may assert its 'exclusive power' with regard to impeachment matters. Three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024, all of which were connected with the alleged misuse of confidential funds. The fourth impeachment complaint, endorsed by over one-third of lawmakers from the House of Representatives, was later on transmitted to the Senate. Duterte, for her part, entered a 'not guilty' plea in the verified impeachment complaint filed against her, which she called merely a 'scrap of paper.' — BM, GMA Integrated News
