Ruling on financial records anticipated, but not a setback – Sara Duterte camp

VEEP. Vice President Sara Duterte during the 89th Araw ng Dabaw in March 2026. Inday Sara Duterte Facebook page Defense spokesperson and counsel Michael Poa says they may resort to legal remedies in response to the ruling MANILA, Philippines – The defense team of Vice President Sara Duterte said they submit to the impeachment court’s ruling on issuing subpoenas for her financial records, but clarified that they may still seek legal remedies. “Whatever happens, the possibility of this happening is something we also anticipated. So, hindi naman natin masasabi na malaking-malaking setback ‘to. Siyempre, hindi naman tayo magbobolahan. Siyempre, mas gusto namin kung talagang napagbigyan din yung opposition namin,” defense spokesperson and counsel Michael Poa told reporters in a briefing on Monday, July 20. (So we can’t say this is a somewhat big setback. Of course, we are not fooling ourselves here. Of course, we wanted our opposition to be granted.) “We just submit to the ruling of the court. But again, without prejudice, [to the] remedies, remedies that are available,” he added. After two days of deliberations, the Senate impeachment court on Monday granted the prosecution’s request to subpoena the bank and Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) records, as well as the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) files related to Duterte and husband Manases Carpio. The ruling only granted the subpoenas for these documents, but whether or not they will be used as evidence will still be decided by the court. The Duterte camp had opposed the prosecution’s request, arguing that the issuance of subpoenas would violate confidentiality clauses in laws related to banking, tax, and anti-money laundering, as well as the Vice President’s constitutional rights. But what would be the legal remedies the defense might take? Poa explained that it’s unclear to them if they can file a motion for reconsideration with the impeachment court because it’s not stated in the impeachment rules. He, however, said that there’s a possibility of “going up” or filing a petition with the Supreme Court since “everything is subject to judicial review depending on the circumstances available.” Poa clarified that they have yet to decide on their next moves and will still consult with the Vice President. “But it doesn’t mean that we will be doing it. It doesn’t mean that we will not be doing it. But this is something we’ll have to discuss amongst ourselves,” he added. How about small wins? Although the ruling was highly favorable for the prosecution, Duterte’s camp still scored some minor victories. For example, the defense had invoked in its memorandum that the Supreme Court’s Duterte v. House of Representatives – the 2025 SC ruling that stopped the first impeachment – applies to the request for subpoenas. Duterte had argued that the due process requirement in the ruling should also apply to her present case. The impeachment court explained in its Monday decision that the subpoenas “will not be used to allege additional independent impeachable offenses.” “The Court will not allow this in adherence to the doctrine laid down in Duterte v. House of Representatives (supra), as this will violate the respondent’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against her and of her rights to due process “’at every stage of the proceedings’,” the Senate impeachment court said. The senator-judges also junked the request to subpoena the financial records related to the JTC Group of Companies and Pikimong Pikimong Philippines Corporation. “Their (the companies) General Information Sheets do not identify the respondent or her spouse as shareholders, and the prosecution, at this time, failed to show either a direct business interest or a clear and convincing basis to disregard their separate juridical personalities,” said the ruling. Poa said that while others could consider these as small wins, the defense felt strongly about the impeachment court’s decision because the prosecution’s requests were “overbroad.” “At parati ko naman sinasabi, hindi namin kinakatakot ‘yong mga dokumento, ‘di ba? (And as I always say, we’re not afraid of the documents, right?)” said Poa. “...Sa akin kasi, pagdating sa Bill of Rights, it’s tested when it’s inconvenient, not when it’s convenient, ‘di ba? Katulad ngayon, that’s how you really test kung uubra ‘yong due process in a situation that’s difficult to decide, that’s inconvenient for everyone,” he added. (For me, when it comes to Bill of Rights, it’s tested when it’s inconvenient, not when it’s convenient, right? Like now, that’s how you really test if due process is applicable in a situation that’s difficult to decide, that’s inconvenient for everyone.) – Rappler.com How does this make you feel? Loading