MARCOS APPROVED THE RELEASE, NOT THE EVIDENCE

The Senate impeachment court granted the prosecution’s request for Duterte’s tax records on July 20. But a subpoena from the Senate was only the first step because the court itself said it did not automatically authorize the BIR to disclose taxpayer information.

The BIR still had to follow the Tax Code before handing over the records. On July 30, agency representatives said they had secured Marcos’s authorization and submitted the documents to the court.

Marcos therefore allowed the BIR to comply with the subpoena. He did not decide that the records were true, relevant, admissible, or damaging to Duterte because those decisions belong to the impeachment court.

THE PRESIDENT’S APPROVAL WAS REQUIRED BY THE TAX CODE

Income tax returns are protected from casual disclosure. Section 71 of the National Internal Revenue Code says returns kept by the BIR may be opened for inspection upon an order from the President, following rules issued by the Department of Finance and a recommendation from the BIR commissioner.

Section 270 also penalizes BIR personnel who unlawfully reveal taxpayer information. This placed the agency between a Senate subpoena it could not simply ignore and a Tax Code that required legal authority before disclosure.

Presidential authorization gave the BIR a lawful way to respond. A similar step was taken during the 2012 impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, when the BIR released tax records after then President Benigno Aquino III approved their production.

THE FIRST BOX WAS RETURNED BECAUSE THE SENATE HAD NOT SUBPOENAED IT

The sealed box first appeared during the House impeachment hearings in April. The House Committee on Justice had subpoenaed tax records connected to Duterte, her husband Manases Carpio, and their business interests, but the BIR brought them in a sealed box because lawmakers had not settled whether they could legally open it.

On April 29, the committee voted 38–6 to keep the box sealed and later sent it to the Senate with the impeachment records. When the trial began, the Senate returned the unopened box to the BIR.

The problem was procedural. The impeachment court had not issued its own subpoena, and the documents had not been marked or formally offered as evidence, leaving the Senate without a legal basis to keep them at that stage.

The July 20 subpoena corrected that problem. Marcos’s authorization cleared the separate Tax Code requirement that remained.

THE RECORDS ARE MEANT TO TEST THE UNEXPLAINED-WEALTH ALLEGATION

The tax records are connected to Article II of the impeachment case, which accuses Duterte of culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust over alleged undeclared or unexplained wealth. Prosecutors want to compare them with Duterte’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, bank records, company filings, and Anti-Money Laundering Council records.

Tax returns show income and other information declared to the BIR, while the Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth show what a public official reported owning and owing. Bank and Anti-Money Laundering Council records may show transactions and account activity.

The court may use these records together to check whether Duterte’s reported income, assets, liabilities, business interests, and financial transactions match. Any conclusion would have to come from the full set of evidence rather than the tax returns alone.

The subpoena covers records involving Duterte, Carpio, 19 corporations, and one law partnership that the court found sufficiently connected to them. Requests involving two other companies were rejected because prosecutors had not shown enough proof linking those firms to Duterte or Carpio.

Records from 2007 to 2021 may be used only as a starting point for comparison. The court said they cannot become the basis of new impeachment charges over conduct before Duterte’s current term.

DELIVERY DOES NOT MEAN THE BOX WILL BE OPENED TO THE PUBLIC

The BIR’s submission does not turn Duterte’s tax records into documents anyone may read. The court ordered the sensitive financial records to pass through the clerk of court for private review before they are given to the parties.

Prosecutors must still identify the documents they plan to use and explain how each one supports Article II. Duterte’s lawyers can object, after which the senator-judges will decide what enters the evidence and what the records actually show.

A tax return records what a taxpayer declared. Standing alone, it cannot explain every bank transaction, prove that every declaration was accurate, or establish unexplained wealth.