Manila: The procedure used to open the tax records of former Chief Justice Renato Corona may guide the Senate impeachment court as it considers the prosecution's bid to subpoena the tax documents of Vice President Sara Duterte.

According to Philippines News Agency, impeachment court spokesperson Reginald 'Regie' Tongol said Thursday the court is looking at how then Bureau of Internal Revenue Commissioner Kim Henares handled a similar subpoena during Corona's 2012 impeachment trial. Henares first received the impeachment court's subpoena before seeking authority from then President Benigno Aquino III to produce the requested tax records, Tongol said.

'Yes, so that the BIR Commissioner can reduce his risk and liabilities under the law,' he said, explaining why the subpoena should precede presidential authorization. Tongol said the procedure allowed Henares to avoid possible contempt for withholding subpoenaed documents while protecting her from liability for releasing confidential tax information without legal authority.

Under Section 71 of the National Internal Revenue Code, income tax returns may be opened for inspection upon the order of the President. Section 270 penalizes unauthorized disclosure by BIR personnel but recognizes exceptions provided by law. 'Yung power na po iyon ay nakalagay sa batas (That power is provided by law),' Tongol said, referring to presidential authority over the inspection of tax returns.

The impeachment court earlier deferred action on the prosecution's request for subpoenas covering bank, tax, and Anti-Money Laundering Council records to give senator-judges more time to study the legal and privacy issues involved. Tongol said the requested records are intended for the presentation of evidence under Article 2 and are not immediately needed as the trial proceeds with other impeachment articles.

Senator-judges are expected to resume their debate on the subpoena request Monday, although Tongol said further legal arguments could prompt the court to seek additional time before ruling. The Article 2 request is more contentious than the subpoenas issued for LandBank officials and documents under Article 1 because it involves tax secrecy, bank confidentiality, and privacy laws, Tongol said. He added that the defense may challenge specific evidence or questions once the subpoenaed documents and witnesses are presented before the court.