Prosecution, VP Sara Duterte defense clash over AMLC records confidentiality

A dispute over the confidentiality of Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) records prompted the prosecution and the defense of Vice President Sara Duterte to clash during the 32nd day of her impeachment trial.

The issue arose as the prosecution prepared to present AMLC Executive Director Ronell Buenaventura as a witness. Duterte’s lead defense counsel, Attorney Sheila Sison, asked the impeachment court to move Buenaventura’s testimony to Monday, saying the defense needed more time to examine the voluminous records it had received.

Sison also raised concerns over the confidentiality provisions governing AMLC records.

“In addition, of course, to our objection that we may raise on the confidentiality, absolute confidentiality, of these records,” Sison said.

She said the summaries provided to the defense carried confidentiality markings and cited Section 8-A of Republic Act 11521, or the amended Anti-Money Laundering Act, which requires AMLC personnel to protect information obtained in the course of their duties.

Sison also argued that the impeachment court’s July order compelling the AMLC to submit records did not prevent the defense from raising further objections to their use.

House prosecutor Diokno disputed the defense’s position, saying the defense had access to the AMLC documents since Sept. 2.

He argued that Section 8-A did not bar the use or discussion of the records pursuant to a valid subpoena issued by the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.

“It does not, and constitutionally cannot, nullify the lawful subpoena powers of the Senate sitting as an impeachment court where compliance with the lawful constitutional subpoena is a justifying circumstance that, if at all, would extinguish any penal liability under Article 11, Paragraph 6 of the Revised Penal Code, for any person acting in obedience to an order issued by a superior or some other lawful purpose,” Diokno said.

“I believe I have said this before, that Section 8-A was only intended to prevent leaks by officers or employees of the Anti-Money Laundering Council. It was never intended as a blanket shield for any lawful subpoenas issued by a proper court,” he added.

Diokno cited instances when the Sandiganbayan had subpoenaed AMLC officers who subsequently presented documents, saying the Senate impeachment court should likewise be able to exercise its subpoena powers.

He also maintained that the defense could not seek reconsideration of the impeachment court’s ruling, arguing that such a motion could only be made by a senator-judge.

Despite the prosecution’s objections, impeachment court presiding officer Senator-Judge Francis Escudero granted the defense additional time to review the records.

-Paraluman News