EXPLAINER: Why were ex-CJ Renato Corona's bank and tax records subpoenaed? 

Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial has drawn parallels with past impeachment trial cases, with the subpoena for her bank and tax records bringing recollections of the proceedings against former Chief Justice Renato Corona.

On Monday, July 20, the Senate impeachment court granted the prosecution’s request to subpoena the vice president’s financial records. Similarly in 2012, the Senate impeachment court also voted to subpoena Corona’s bank records.

GMA News Online takes a look at the most recent precedent.

The Corona trial

During Corona’s trial, the House prosecution team asked the court to subpoena his bank records from PSBank and BPI to compare the contents to what he declared in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN).

Like Duterte’s defense team, Corona’s defense also cited the Bank Secrecy Law in a bid to block the subpoena. However, in both cases, the impeachment court granted the prosecution panel’s request.

The Bank Secrecy Law explicitly lists an impeachment trial as an exemption.

Aside from bank records, the impeachment court also allowed the prosecution to use Corona’s SALN as evidence. Officials from PSBank and BPI were also summoned by the impeachment court to submit the bank records.

In 2012, Senator Chiz Escudero, who was also a senator-judge, asked if Corona’s bank records before he became Chief Justice could also be accepted as evidence.

Senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano would later state that the initial deposits are part of the “opening documents” that should have been presented to the impeachment court.

Presiding officer Juan Ponce Enrile agreed with Cayetano.

When Corona was on the witness stand in his own trial, he signed the waiver allowing the court to look into his bank accounts since 2002.

After this, Corona challenged the 188 House lawmakers who voted to impeach him to do the same.

The former chief justice then walked out without being dismissed after making his opening statement.

This prompted Enrile to warn Corona that he would be cited in contempt if he did not return to the court. Corona returned an hour later in a wheelchair.

The Sara Duterte trial

Current House prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno cited Corona's subpoena in his push to disclose Duterte's bank records.

House prosecutors have referred to the Corona case as a precedent to subpoena Duterte’s own financial records.

However, Duterte’s defense team said that the Corona case cannot be an example, as the Supreme Court (SC) has already made a new ruling in Duterte v. House of Representatives. This is the same court ruling that stopped the first impeachment case against Duterte in 2025 and enacted several new guidelines in the process.

The SC decision also said that while the impeachment process is sui generis (of its own kind), it is not purely political. The protections afforded to an individual in the Bill of Rights still apply.

Despite this, the impeachment court still voted to obtain Duterte’s bank records, with presiding officer Escudero saying that the prosecution was able to provide sufficient justification for the subpoena. —Jean Mangaluz/LDF, GMA News