Impeachment court ruling on subpoena for Sara Duterte records stays despite 'dissent' —prosecutors

A written letter of dissent filed by a senator-judge will not overturn the ruling of the Senate impeachment court to issue subpoenas for the bank, Anti-Money Laundering Council, and relevant tax records of Vice President Sara Duterte and her husband, Manases Carpio, the House prosecution panel said Tuesday.

“It will not change the ruling, of course. The ruling will stand,” House prosecution panel spokesperson Jay Tolosa said in a press briefing.

“Kapag may pagpapasya about sa evidentiary matters ang presiding judge, pwede ho siya mag rule diyan unless may mag object, in which case pwede po nilang pagbotohan. Kapag dito naman ho, no, kung dissent lang, hindi naman nito ma-overturn ‘yung ruling,” he added.

(When the presiding judge makes a ruling on evidentiary matters, they may rule on it unless someone objects, in which case it may be put to a vote. Here, however, mere dissent does not overturn the ruling.)

On Monday, the impeachment court granted the House prosecution panel’s request for a subpoena.

Following this, Senator Alan Peter Cayetano said he will file a written dissent on the ruling.

LIVE UPDATES: Sara Duterte Impeachment Trial (July 21, 2026)

Different views

Meanwhile, Prosecutor Chel Diokno said that it is a senator-judge’s right to file a dissent under the Rules of the Senate for Impeachment.

"Sa ilalim po ng rules of the Senate for impeachment, talaga namang merong karapatang mag-file ang senator-judge kung hindi siya sumasang-ayon sa pasya ng impeachment court," Diokno explained.

(Under the Senate rules for impeachment, a senator-judge indeed has the right to file [a manifestation or dissent] if they do not agree with the decision of the impeachment court.)

“Gusto din natin makita syempre ‘yung iba’t ibang views ng ating senator judges. We will also look into that kapag nai-file na po ‘yan,” he added.

(We also want to see, of course, the different views of our senator-judges. We will also look into that once it has been filed.)

Diokno also said that when the impeachment complaint reached the House Justice Committee, their job was to find probable cause, not to discover all the evidence.

He issued the remark when asked about Davao City Representative Pulong Duterte’s statement that the House first impeached the vice president before looking for evidence.

“Kaya mapapansin ninyo, portion lang ng ebidensya ang nakita natin sa Committee on Justice. The time to have evidence presented at syempre para makapag presenta ng ebidensya, ‘yung panahon para i-subpoena ‘yun, ay dito sa loob ng Senate bilang impeachment court,” he said.

(As you will notice, we saw only a portion of the evidence before the Committee on Justice. The proper time to present evidence and to subpoena evidence is here in the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.)

He denied that there was a “fishing expedition” or a “shortcut.”

National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) chief Melvin Matibag, meanwhile, is expected to testify in today’s hearing as the final witness in the House prosecution panel’s presentation of evidence on Article IV. —with reports from Tina Panganiban-Perez/ VAL, GMA News