Lawyers for Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte said on Monday they may consider asking the Supreme Court (SC) to review an impeachment court decision allowing prosecutors to obtain certain financial and government records.

Defense spokesperson Michael Wesley Poa said the legal team had not yet decided whether to elevate the matter to the high court after the impeachment court granted the House prosecution panel’s request for subpoenas covering records from banking institutions involving Duterte, Carpio, Carpio Lawyers, and 19 corporate entities.

“Everything is subject to judicial review depending on the circumstances available. But we have not made that decision yet,” Poa told reporters after the proceedings.

The subpoenas were sought by prosecutors as part of their effort to establish allegations of unexplained wealth contained in Article II of the impeachment complaint against Duterte.

Presiding Officer Francis Escudero announced that the impeachment court granted the request for subpoenas directed at the concerned financial institutions, covering accounts held by Duterte, Carpio, their law partnership, and the listed corporations.

The defense had opposed the request, arguing that the subpoenas were overly broad and amounted to a fishing expedition that could violate Duterte’s constitutional rights to privacy and due process.

Poa said the defense respected the ruling but maintained that it had strong legal grounds for objecting.

“We submit to the decision of the impeachment court, but without prejudice to legal remedies available under the law,” he said.

Corona precedent

In the ruling, Escudero cited the 2011 impeachment trial of then-Chief Justice Renato Corona as a precedent the defense had considered, although he argued that the legal circumstances had changed since then.

During Corona’s trial, prosecutors accused the chief justice of failing to fully disclose his wealth after alleging discrepancies between his declared assets and his actual holdings. The prosecution sought access to Corona’s bank records to support its allegations.

The Senate impeachment court allowed the release of records from Philippine Savings Bank, where Corona held a dollar account, after prosecutors sought the documents as evidence. 

Corona’s lawyers challenged the move, arguing that the disclosure violated banking secrecy laws and his constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court later intervened by issuing a temporary restraining order involving the disclosure of some foreign currency deposit records, but the impeachment trial proceeded. Corona was eventually convicted by the Senate in May 2012 and removed from office.

The high court later dismissed Corona’s petition as moot following his conviction, leaving questions on the extent of judicial review over impeachment proceedings unresolved.

Poa said the defense believed the present case involved different legal considerations.

“Marami nang nangyari in between, from then till now,” he said, referring to developments since the Corona trial.

‘Fishing expedition’ dispute

The defense has argued that some of the documents sought by prosecutors amounted to a “fishing expedition,” saying investigators were seeking information beyond the specific allegations contained in the articles of impeachment.

The impeachment court rejected that characterization, saying the documents would not be used to introduce new impeachment charges and would instead relate to the existing accusations against Duterte.

Poa said the defense would wait to see how prosecutors would use the records once obtained.

“It’s very difficult for us to fathom how we will proceed on that,” he said. “But if that is the position of the impeachment court, then we will respect it.”

He added that the ruling only addressed the issuance of subpoenas and did not automatically determine whether the documents would later be admitted as evidence.

Questions on admissibility, he said, would be raised when prosecutors formally offer their evidence during trial.

Strategy unchanged

Despite losing its bid to block the subpoenas, Poa said the defense did not view the decision as a major setback.

“We don’t fear the documents. The point really is that we have laws, we have the due process clause in the Constitution,” Poa said.

Poa also said the impeachment court’s ruling did not automatically mean the documents would become evidence against Duterte. The defense would still have the opportunity to challenge the admissibility of the records when prosecutors formally offer them as evidence.

“Once these pieces of evidence or documents are presented in court, you can expect certain objections,” he said.

The prosecution’s next steps will include presenting additional witnesses, while the defense said it was prepared to cross-examine and adjust its strategy based on the evidence presented.

Poa said the defense would decide on possible legal remedies only after further discussions.

“It doesn’t mean that we will be doing it. It doesn’t mean that we will not be doing it,” he said. 

“We still have to discuss whether it would be advantageous for our case to go up,” he added.