HOUSE Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability Chair Joel Chua on Monday said the House Committee on Justice is empowered under the Constitution and its own rules to look into Vice President Sara Duterte’s tax records, arguing that the panel’s authority to issue compulsory processes includes the subpoena that led to the Bureau of Internal Revenue’s (BIR) production of her income tax returns.
“Doon sa nagkaroon ng issue dahil ito ay tinutulan, bagamat sumunod ang Commissioner ng BIR na dalhin dahil by virtue of the subpoena, pero sinasabi niya base sa Revenue Code, bawal daw po. Ako po kasi personally, although hindi naman po ito ‘yung desisyon ng ating mga kasama, sa akin po allowed,” Chua, a lawyer and a member of the House Committee on Justice, said.
“Bakit ko po sinasabi na allowed? Doon sa ating Constitution, ang sinasabi sa Constitution ang Kongreso may exclusive power na gumawa ng sarili naming rules. At doon sa aming rules kami ay binibigyan ng pahintulot na mag-issue ng compulsory processes which is ito pong subpoena,” Chua explained.
He said that, in his reading, the subpoena power granted by the Constitution and the committee’s rules gives the panel legal footing to demand the ITRs, even if another statute is being invoked to resist disclosure.
“At ito pong BIR, ‘yang ITR po ito po ay bunga ng subpoena na binibigay po sa aming kapangyarihan ng Rules at ng Saligang Batas. O kung may conflict doon between doon sa national law at sa Constitution, ang mananaig po diyan ang ating Saligang Batas,” Chua pointed out.
Chua added that the committee chose not to force the issue immediately, not because it had abandoned the material, but because it wanted to avoid giving Duterte’s camp an opening to delay the proceedings through a court challenge or a temporary restraining order (TRO).
“But just the same, para hindi na po nila questionin sa Korte Suprema para hindi na po sila mag-apply ng TRO, ito po ay pinagpaliban muna namin. Hindi naman po namin ito dine-disregard totally; ito ay ni-lay on the table, kumbaga, nilagay muna diyan sa gilid,” he said.
Even without the ITRs for now, Chua said the documentary picture already forming before the committee is troubling enough because the figures from the SALN, the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are not lining up with one another.
“Pero ako po sa aking paniniwala, even without the BIR, even without the ITR, medyo yung numero po malalayo. Hindi po nagtutugma-tugma yung numero sa SALN, yung numero sa AMLC, at numero sa SEC,” he noted.
That, for Chua, is also why Duterte’s past SALNs matter in checking her current wealth declarations, because the allegation on the table is not merely about what she owns now but whether her accumulation of wealth over time can be explained by what she had when she first entered public office.
“Kasi unexplained wealth so syempre titingnan po natin ang history from the time na siya po ay unang naging public official: magkano ba ‘yung kanyang dineclare na mga ari-arian. Ano ang magiging basis natin na ito ay ill-gotten kung hindi po natin alam ‘yung history ng public official,” Chua said.
He said the point of reviewing the older SALNs is to establish the baseline from which the public can judge whether the present declarations still track the official’s actual financial history.
“So, nang 2007 lumalabas na ang kanyang ari-arian P33 million. Nang siya po ay naging Vice President or 20 years, 19 year, 2007-2024, mga ilang taon naging P88 million. So ‘yun po ‘yung ine-establish natin,” he added.
Chua, however, suggested that even those declared wealth figures may understate the scale of the real problem, because the more staggering numbers, in his view, are the financial movements flagged in the AMLC records.
“Pero actually ito pong figure na ito, dito po kasi sa figure na ito medyo maliit lang. Ang nakakalula po talagang numero ‘yung inilabas po ng AMLC. ‘Yun po ang dapat nilang ipaliwanag. Kung saan po nanggaling ‘yun?” he said.
“Hindi po nagma-match ‘yung figure ng kanyang SALN, ‘yung kanyang AMLC at ‘yung sa SEC. Na sinasabi na mga kinita ng kanilang mga negosyo,” Chua stressed.
He then raised another issue that, in his reading, may point to a separate Constitutional problem, saying the vice president herself declared that she was a board director of a corporation even though top officials are barred from engaging in business or profession while in office.
“At ang isa pa pong issue na lumalabas dito nung tinignan po natin ‘yung na isang masasabing violation, sa ating Saligang Batas, ang Presidente, Vice President, member of the Cabinet, they are not allowed to engage in any business or profession. Dito po, dineclare po niya na siya po ay board of director ng isang korporasyon. Doon lamang po violation na po,” Chua alleged.
