The legal team representing Vice President Sara Duterte asserted that the Senate impeachment court’s decision to approve the prosecution’s request for her financial documents does not constitute a major blow, as her lawyers explore options that may include escalating the matter to the Supreme Court.
Speaking to journalists following the ruling on Monday, July 20, defense lawyer Atty. Michael Poa noted that the defense had anticipated the outcome despite mounting a strong opposition against the prosecution’s motion.
”The possibility of this happening is something we also anticipated. So hindi naman natin masasabi na malaking-malaking setback ito,” Poa said.
Poa emphasized that the defense maintains its conviction regarding the legal grounds opposed to the subpoena, though ultimate authority resided with the impeachment tribunal.
”We submit to the decision of the impeachment court, but, of course, without prejudice to legal remedies available under the law,” he said.
When pressed on whether the team planned to take the dispute to the Supreme Court, Poa affirmed that the option remains available, though a final decision has not yet been determined.
”There is a possibility of going up because, as I mentioned earlier, everything is subject to judicial review depending on the circumstances available. But we have not made that decision yet,” he said.
He explained that the legal team needs to deliberate internally and seek Vice President Duterte’s counsel before determining their formal strategy.
”That remedy is always available, but as to whether it is possible, siyempre, anything is possible,” Poa said.
“But are we going to do it? Hindi pa namin napag-uusapan,” he added.
Earlier that day, the Senate sitting as an impeachment court granted the prosecution panel’s bid to access Duterte’s bank records, tax filings, and Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) documents linked to Article II of the Articles of Impeachment, which centers on claims of unexplained wealth.
During oral arguments, Duterte’s legal counsel argued that the request was an improper “fishing expedition,” contending that prosecutors were seeking nearly two decades of financial history without singling out specific supporting evidence.
The defense further argued that Section 8-A of the Anti-Money Laundering Act bars the release of AMLC records and offers no exemption for impeachment proceedings, contrasting it with the Bank Secrecy Law.
Prosecutors countered that the subpoena was essential to establish a financial baseline, adding that the court would determine at a later stage whether the obtained documents could be formally admitted into evidence.
Poa emphasized that the dispute over the subpoena remains open-ended, as the tribunal has yet to rule on whether any produced documents will ultimately be admitted into trial evidence.
”Tama naman sa subpoena stage pa lang ito. So tingnan muna natin how the evidence will be appreciated,” he said.
He reiterated that while the defense continues to evaluate potential legal steps, it accepts the impeachment court’s ruling for the time being.