Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense team petitioned the Senate impeachment court on Wednesday to reject the prosecution’s motion to access her financial history, characterizing the move as an indiscriminate search for evidence rather than a targeted inquiry based on established facts.
Addressing the senator-judges on the sixth day of the trial, defense attorney Michael Poa argued that House prosecutors leveled accusations of unexplained wealth against the Vice President without first presenting any documentary proof.
Poa asserted that any subpoena targeting the bank statements, tax files, and financial records of both Duterte and her husband, Atty. Mans Carpio, must meet strict legal criteria for relevance and specificity.
“When a subpoena becomes oppressive, when it is unreasonable, and when it is merely issued for the very purpose that there is a hope that somewhere, somehow, something incriminating will come out, it ceases to be an instrument of justice, it becomes a weapon of a fishing expedition,” Poa said.
Poa highlighted that the impeachment complaints lacked foundational financial documentation, pointing out that the allegations did not include essential items like Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs).
“Not a single financial transaction record, not even a single SALN,” he said.
He further contended that the search for corroborating evidence only commenced after the complaints were officially lodged and after Duterte had submitted her formal reply to the House Committee on Justice.
“In fact, it was only after these complaints were filed and after the respondent had filed the answer before the [House] committee on justice that the Committee started searching for evidence to somehow support these accusations through issuance of subpoena,” he added.
The defense also challenged the prosecution’s attempt to secure financial histories dating back to 2007, the year Duterte began her tenure as vice mayor of Davao City.
Poa maintained that analyzing nearly two decades of personal finances bears no relevance to the matter currently before the court.
“How is that relevant? (This) is an unlimited search throughout a person’s financial history. That should not be allowed,” he said.
Additionally, Poa invoked current statutes protecting the privacy of tax and bank details, arguing that these laws restrict the disclosure of the specific records requested by prosecutors, including Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) reports. He stated that the Anti-Money Laundering Act contains no explicit provisions authorizing the release of confidential AMLC data for impeachment trials.
Furthermore, he cited Section 270 of the National Internal Revenue Code, which criminalizes the unauthorized leaking of taxpayer details by Bureau of Internal Revenue staff.
While conceding that the Bank Secrecy Law recognizes an exception for impeachment proceedings, Poa argued that this clause does not grant unrestricted permission to review every account flagged by the prosecution.
“Hindi po dahil may exception for impeachment, pwede na agad nating buksan ang lahat ng bank records na hinihingi ng prosecution,” he said.
The defense team also strongly opposed incorporating the financial files of Mans Carpio, stressing that the Vice President’s husband is a private citizen who does not hold a position subject to impeachment.
Conversely, House prosecutors maintained that the sought-after documents are vital to proving Article II of the impeachment charge. They countered that their subpoena request is grounded in evidence uncovered during prior House hearings, which reportedly includes records of covered and suspicious financial transactions linked to Duterte and Carpio.
The Senate impeachment court has yet to issue a final ruling on whether to grant the prosecution’s request for the subpoenas.