AMLC probe finds no legal violations in disclosures, lead prosecutor states

MANILA, 6 OCTOBER 2026 —

House prosecutor defends AMLC disclosures in Sara Duterte impeachment, dismisses legal risks

Gerville Luistro, chair of the House Committee on Justice and a Batangas representative, made the statement after the 33rd day of Duterte’s impeachment trial, as the defense warned that those handling confidential AMLC information could face criminal liability.

The legal dispute centers on whether the House exceeded its authority by subpoenaing and discussing AMLC records—including transactions linked to Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio—as part of its impeachment inquiry. Luistro’s defense hinges on the constitutional exclusivity of the House’s impeachment power, which she argues supersedes confidentiality provisions under the Anti-Money Laundering Act (Republic Act No. 9160).

The prosecutor cited Article XI, Section 3(1) of the 1987 Constitution, which grants the House the sole authority to initiate impeachment cases, and Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1405 (Bank Secrecy Law), which permits the examination of bank deposits in impeachment proceedings.

Luistro’s stance directly counters warnings from Duterte’s legal team, which has framed the disclosure of AMLC data as a potential criminal offense under the law. In a press briefing, she reiterated that the House Committee on Justice’s hearings—including the issuance of subpoenas for AMLC records—were a lawful exercise of its constitutional duty.

“We were exercising our duty as members of the House, we were exercising our duty, which is to initiate all impeachment cases,” she said, adding that the proceedings fell under an exception to the confidentiality of AMLC data.

The prosecutor also expressed concern that the defense’s legal threats could intimidate media outlets covering the impeachment trial, describing the warnings as a “chilling effect” that risked undermining press freedom. “Let us not forget the significance of this impeachment trial: this is one of the paramount provisions, most important provisions of the Constitution as it gives our beloved countrymen the redress against erring impeachable officials,” Luistro stated.

She extended her legal defense to the Senate impeachment court and the media, arguing that their actions in reporting on the case were protected under public interest and press freedom.

The legal debate gained urgency after AMLC Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura testified before the Senate impeachment court, providing detailed evidence of financial transactions involving Duterte and her family. Presiding Officer Francis Escudero noted that Buenaventura’s testimony—the longest ever in an impeachment proceeding—confirmed ₱193 million in transactions linked to Duterte and her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte, on March 28, 2014.

Buenaventura further disclosed that CALE88, a food company owned by Carpio that produces banana chips, received over ₱319.3 million in funds from China, a claim previously made by former Senator Antonio Trillanes IV during a press briefing last Friday.

Trillanes, who initially intended to testify before the Senate but later withdrew to avoid adding pressure to the prosecution, had presented the same financial allegations in a public forum. His earlier sworn affidavit, which listed 18 Duterte-related transactions, was partially confirmed by Buenaventura on April 22, when the AMLC chief verified the existence of those transactions after Mamamayang Liberal party-list Rep. Leila de Lima randomly selected them for review.

The impeachment proceedings now hinge on whether the House’s handling of AMLC records will be deemed a legal overreach or a justified exercise of constitutional authority. Luistro’s defense sets the stage for a potential confrontation between the legislative and judicial branches, particularly as the Senate prepares to weigh the admissibility of the disclosed evidence.

With Buenaventura’s testimony already revealing substantial financial irregularities, the legal battle over confidentiality may ultimately determine whether the impeachment case proceeds—or stalls—on procedural grounds.

Related: CALE88 · Manila