A constitutional law expert said the Senate impeachment court is not legally barred from examining Vice President Sara Duterte's actions during her previous stints in public office.

Citing Article XI, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, law expert Mel Sta. Maria said the provision declaring that "public office is a public trust" and that public officials "must, at all times, be accountable to the people" leaves no basis for limiting an impeachment inquiry to an official's current term.

"The choice of words and phrases is uncompromising. 'Must, at all times' does not mean 'only during the current term' or only during the Vice Presidency," he wrote.

Duterte's defense has argued that such an inquiry would exceed the Constitution's limits on impeachment.

During oral arguments on Wednesday opposing prosecutors' request to subpoena Duterte's bank, tax and anti-money laundering records, defense spokesperson Michael Poa cited the Supreme Court's 2025 ruling in Duterte v. House of Representatives, arguing that impeachable offenses "must have been committed while the respondent occupied an impeachable office."

He said prosecutors' requests for records dating back to 2007, when Duterte was Davao vice mayor, amounted to a constitutionally impermissible "fishing expedition."

Sta. Maria disagreed, saying Article XI, Section 2 of the Constitution merely identifies which officials may be impeached—including the vice president—and lists the grounds for removal, such as culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust.

He argued that the provision contains no language restricting impeachment inquiries to acts committed during an official's term.

"Reference to the 'Vice President' is not equivalent to 'functioning as Vice President,'" Sta. Maria said. "They completely omit any restrictive timeframe for when the offenses or grounds for impeachment must have been committed."

According to Sta. Maria, an impeachment court may consider evidence from an official's earlier public service if it helps establish an alleged continuing pattern relevant to the constitutional ground of betrayal of public trust.

"Past actions that demonstrate a premeditated pattern of covering up offenses directly inform the court whether the official's current trustworthiness is an active, ongoing misrepresentation to the public," he said.

The constitutional dispute has taken on added significance as House prosecutors seek access to Duterte's financial records, arguing they are necessary to prove allegations of unexplained wealth.

The defense has countered that the prosecution is attempting to build its case through subpoenas rather than evidence already contained in the articles of impeachment, violating due process.

The Senate impeachment court has yet to rule on the competing arguments as of press time.