The House Prosecution Panel declared Tuesday that their case against Vice President Sara Duterte is already solid, with or without her bank records, but emphasized that obtaining financial documents would provide even further confirmation of allegations regarding irregularities and ill-gotten wealth.
House Assistant Majority Leader and Taguig City Rep. Pammy Zamora, a key member of the Impeachment Secretariat, assured the public that the prosecution team has already gathered substantial evidence across multiple Articles of Impeachment.
Financial records, if secured, would only serve as further proof of the money trail. “The evidence we have right now is compelling and backed by documents, testimonies, and official records,” Zamora said.
“But if we can secure the Vice President’s financial records, it will be the icing on the cake—a definitive, undeniable piece of evidence that will speak for itself, supporting several of the Articles of Impeachment,” she added.
Zamora reiterated that the impeachment case against Duterte is not a fishing expedition but a carefully built legal case grounded on facts. She said it was built on hard evidence supported by the following:
- Official documents exposing alleged irregularities in both the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and Department of Education’s (DepEd) confidential funds.
- Testimonies linking questionable transactions to alleged improper fund disbursements.
- A timeline showing alleged inconsistencies in how public money was allocated and spent.
- Coordinated with financial oversight agencies such as the Commission on Audit (COA) to track fund movements.
“Our case does not depend on a single piece of evidence. We have already connected the dots. The financial records, if obtained, will simply validate and confirm what the documents and testimonies have already revealed,” Zamora explained.
While emphasizing that the case against Duterte is already well-founded, the lawmaker said summoning her bank records remains a necessary step—not because the case lacks merit, but because public officials must be fully transparent about their finances, especially in cases where there are long-standing and unaddressed allegations of ill-gotten wealth.
Zamora also reminded that impeachment is an explicit exception to the Bank Secrecy Law (RA 1405), meaning financial records are fair game in this process, just as they were during the 2012 impeachment of the late Chief Justice Renato Corona, where such records were presented as evidence which ultimately resulted in conviction and removal.
“The question is simple: if there is nothing to hide, why resist transparency? The Bank Secrecy Law does not apply in impeachment cases, and we trust that the Senate, when it convenes, will see the necessity of making these records available,” she said.
Zamora reassured the public that the House prosecution team is fully prepared for trial and that the Senate will be given all the evidence needed to decide fairly.
“The House has done its job. We have built a strong case, gathered the necessary documents, and identified the key witnesses. We trust that the Senate, in its role as an Impeachment Court, will allow the full truth to come out,” she said.
Zamora also hinted that the investigation does not stop with local agencies and that, if necessary, cooperation with international financial regulators could help track offshore transactions.
“Financial trails don’t just stop at our borders. If there are fund movements that require deeper scrutiny, we are prepared to take the necessary steps to ensure full accountability,” she added.
Zamora ended with a strong message: the impeachment case is already airtight, and the only question left is whether Duterte will come clean or allegedly keep resisting transparency.
“The public deserves to know the full truth. The evidence we already have is enough, but we are determined to uncover everything. No public official should be above scrutiny—not even the Vice President,” she said.