MANILA— The House prosecution team defended its use of Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) records in Vice President Sara Z. Duterte’s impeachment case, saying the chamber acted within its constitutional mandate and did not violate the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA).

Batangas 2nd District Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” Luistro, the lead prosecutor, said the House Committee on Justice was authorized to subpoena and discuss AMLC records as part of its proceedings on the impeachment complaint.

“Kami po’y naninindigan: walang nilabag na batas, either the Anti-Money Laundering Act, noong nag-conduct kami ng clarificatory hearing, noong nag-issue kami ng subpoena kaugnay ng AMLC records,” Luistro said at a post-trial press briefing.

Luistro made the statement after AMLC Secretariat Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura testified before the Senate impeachment court about financial transactions involving Duterte, her husband, lawyer Manases “Mans” Carpio, and corporations linked to them.

Defense counsel Mark Vinluan had repeatedly questioned Buenaventura during cross-examination about the confidentiality of AMLC information and possible criminal penalties for unauthorized disclosure, including imprisonment of eight to 15 years and a fine of P500,000 to P1 million.

Luistro said the House proceedings fell within an exception to AMLA and AMLC confidentiality rules because they were conducted in connection with the chamber’s constitutional power to initiate impeachment cases.

“In as far as the House is concerned, we maintain the position that everything that happened in the Justice Committee, including the plenary, in relation to this impeachment case, is part of our mandate and therefore falls under the exception to the confidentiality of data of AMLA, or AMLC,” she said.

She also raised concern that discussions of possible criminal liability for disclosure could discourage journalists from reporting on the proceedings.

“I am apprehensive that it might cause some chilling effect, especially to the media,” she said.

According to Luistro, coverage of the impeachment proceedings involves the dissemination of information on an issue of public interest. She added that the impeachment court had already ruled on the confidentiality question and that any challenge to that ruling should be brought before the Supreme Court.

Luistro said the House had carefully examined the law throughout the proceedings and remained confident that it had not breached AMLC confidentiality rules.

Prosecution cites P4.4-billion financial trail

The House prosecution also maintained that AMLC records showing an aggregate P4.4 billion in covered and suspicious transactions involving Duterte and Carpio from 2007 to 2025 should be examined alongside the vice president’s declared wealth.

Buenaventura testified that the P4.4 billion consisted of P1.63 billion in inflows, P1.31 billion in outflows and P1.46 billion that the AMLC could not reliably classify as either.

House impeachment team adviser and spokesperson Ace Barbers said the records were official documents from covered institutions and not merely allegations.

“Ito po ay hindi haka-haka. Ito ay hindi gawa-gawang kuwento. Ito po ay may resibo. Ito ho ay galing mismo sa reports mula sa mga covered institutions,” Barbers said at a press briefing.

Barbers said the prosecution would reconcile the AMLC records—including cash withdrawals, insurance records, time deposits and dollar-denominated transactions—with Duterte’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs).

“Ngayon nakita na po natin ’yung financial trail,” he said.

Iloilo 1st District Rep. and Deputy Speaker Janette Garin said the possession of money or business interests was not itself improper, but said these should correspond with the declarations made by a public official in their SALN.

“Hindi naman mali kung may pera ang isang tao. Hindi rin mali at maganda nga kung may negosyo ang isang tao. Subalit dapat nagtutugma ito sa SALN, sa dinideklara ng isang opisyal,” Garin said.

Garin specifically raised P319.33 million in inward remittances from mainland China and Hong Kong to Cale88 Foods Corporation, where Carpio held a 47.5% interest through 2024.

“Hindi naman masama kung may pumasok na pera dito galing China. Pero dahil nga nandiyan ito at nasa impeachment trial tayo, kailangan tingnan: ang pagpasok ba ng P319.3 million ay bayad sa biniling banana chips? O ito ba ay dagdag investment?” Garin said.

“Ano ba ang resibo? Anong invoice? Anong pruweba bakit nagkaroon ng transmittal, o pagpapadala ng P319.3 million pesos galing sa China?” she added.

Buenaventura testified that three transactions involving Cale88 were reported as suspicious because there was “no underlying legal or trade obligation, purpose or economic justification.”

Prosecutors to compare records with SALNs

Prosecution spokesperson and counsel Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr. said the financial transactions should be assessed together with Duterte’s declared net worth of P98.5 million as of the end of 2025.

“Kailangan nating ibangga ito,” Tolosa said.

He said the prosecution had also presented evidence concerning firearms valued at more than P7 million in total, real properties worth about P9 million and financial transactions reported to the AMLC.

“Which we have to take together para makita natin, itong P98.5 million na dineklara niya, ito nga ba ay totoong ’yan lang ang kabuuang yaman niya, or mas malaki ang totoong yaman niya at hindi naka-deklara,” Tolosa said.

Among the transactions cited by Buenaventura were six check encashments and over-the-counter withdrawals totaling P41 million from Carpio’s accounts on Aug. 6, 2024.

He also testified about seven transfers totaling P193.71 million involving joint accounts of Duterte and her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte, on March 28, 2014.

Tolosa said the records would be assessed against Duterte’s SALNs to determine whether the amounts she declared accurately represented her wealth.

“All of these things will have to be considered in determining ’yung question: itong naka-deklara na mga amount sa SALN, tama ba ito? Wasto ba ito? Or ang totoong yaman niya ay mas malaki dito?” he said.

Barbers, however, stressed that the prosecution was not yet alleging that the financial records proved that a crime had been committed.

“Hindi po natin sinasabi sa ngayon, sa puntong ito, na meron nang crime na na-commit o na nangyari, kundi kailangan magkaroon ng sapat na paliwanag,” he said.

The House prosecution is presenting the AMLC records under Article II of the impeachment case, which accuses Duterte of unexplained wealth and failure to fully disclose her assets and financial interests.