Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense team and the House prosecutors laid out sharply contrasting views on the Senate impeachment court’s subpoena powers on Wednesday, with one side arguing that an impeachment cannot override constitutional rights and the other insisting the truth cannot be established without access to the Vice President’s financial records.

In his opening statement before the impeachment court, defense lawyer Michael Poa described the prosecution’s motions for subpoenas duces tecum as a “fishing expedition,” saying they were seeking evidence before proving the allegations against Duterte.

“Impeachment is not a magic word or a magic wand that one can just wave to transform an illegal act into a legal act, to transform unlawful access to lawful access,” Poa told the senator-judges.

The House prosecution panel is seeking subpoenas directing the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), banks and other institutions to produce Duterte’s tax returns, bank records, AMLC reports, and financial documents, and those of her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, as well.

The records are central to Article II of the Articles of Impeachment, which accuses Duterte of amassing wealth grossly disproportionate to her lawful income; failing to declare assets in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) from 2022 to 2025, and engaging in business prohibited by the Constitution while serving as Vice President.

Poa argued that compelling the production of the documents would allow the prosecutors to search for evidence instead of proving the allegations already contained in the impeachment complaint.

“When a subpoena becomes oppressive, when it is unreasonable, and when it is issued merely 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,” he said.

Corona precedent vs Duterte ruling

The dispute over Duterte’s financial records evolved into a broader constitutional debate on the scope of the Senate’s impeachment powers.

Leading the prosecution’s arguments, Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno maintained that the Constitution grants the Senate the “sole power” to try and decide impeachment cases, making it the final authority on what evidence is relevant.

He cited the Supreme Court rulings in Francisco v. House of Representatives and Gutierrez v. House of Representatives, which recognized impeachment as a political process entrusted to Congress.

Diokno likewise pointed to the 2012 impeachment trial of then Chief Justice Renato Corona, when the Senate ordered banks to produce Corona’s account records to determine whether he had concealed wealth from his SALNs. Those records were admitted into evidence and later formed part of the basis for Corona’s conviction.

Diokno argued that this precedent demonstrated the Senate’s constitutional authority to compel evidence despite bank secrecy and confidentiality laws.

Addressing the defense’s reliance on the Bank Secrecy Law, the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA), the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), and the Data Privacy Act, Diokno said none of these statutes was intended to obstruct impeachment proceedings.

“Confidentiality, your honor, should not be the prevailing principle in this proceeding. The truth is not confidential,” he said.

Diokno noted that Republic Act 1405, or the Bank Secrecy Law, expressly allows the examination of bank deposits “in cases of impeachment.”

On the AMLA, he argued that the confidentiality provision merely prohibits AMLC officials from leaking information and was never intended to restrict the impeachment court’s authority.

“If you read that law, particularly that provision, it clearly refers to prohibiting leaks by members of the Anti-Money Laundering Council. It never was intended to short-circuit the impeachment process or limit the powers of this honorable court,” he said.

He also contended that while the NIRC imposes confidentiality of tax records, it allows their disclosure under certain circumstances, including under presidential authority.

The issue previously surfaced during a House Committee on Justice hearing, when BIR Commissioner Charlito Mendoza delivered Duterte’s tax records in a sealed green box and cited Section 270 of the NIRC, which penalizes the unauthorized disclosure by BIR personnel.

The House panel deferred opening the sealed box, and the Senate impeachment court ordered the sealed box returned to the BIR.

Diokno further rejected the defense’s due process argument, stressing that compelling agencies to produce records does not automatically make them evidence.

“The request for documents and their eventual admission into evidence are two separate processes,” he said, adding that the defense would still have every opportunity to challenge the admissibility of the records during trial.

Due process argument

For the defense, however, the Corona impeachment no longer provides the controlling legal framework.

Instead, Poa cited the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Duterte v. House of Representatives, which voided an earlier impeachment complaint against the Vice President for violating the Constitution’s one-year bar rule and emphasized that due process must be observed at every stage of impeachment.

Although the case did not involve subpoenas or financial records, the Court clarified that impeachable offenses must have been committed while the respondent occupied an impeachable office.

Poa argued that the matter of principle limits the prosecution’s request because the subpoenas seek financial records dating back to 2007, when Duterte was vice mayor of Davao City.

The defense asserted that extending the inquiry beyond her tenure as Vice President would exceed the constitutional scope of impeachment and effectively transform the proceedings into an impermissible search for evidence of conduct that should instead be addressed through ordinary criminal or civil cases.

As of press time, the Senate impeachment court had yet to rule on the competing motions. Its decision will determine whether the prosecutors can obtain additional financial records or proceed using evidence already gathered during the House impeachment inquiry.