‘I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t surprised. But I don’t think we should cast aspersions on the integrity of the court. It is what it is. That was the resolution.’
TRIAL huddle Senator-judges Robin Padilla (left, front row) and Imee Marcos (right, front row) confer as the Senate impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte enters its sixth day in Pasay City on Wednesday, 15 July 2026.
PHOTOGRAPH BY Aram Lascano FOR DAILY TRIBUNE
Three decades after the Marcopper mining disaster devastated Marinduque’s waterways, the province is again pressing the…
Housing is probably the biggest issue affecting people the world over.
Malacañang on Monday called for a more thorough investigation into the questioned flood control projects in Taguig…
The defense on Monday backed the move by senator-judges to exclude a prosecution witness who testified on the firearms…
Lawyers for Vice President Sara Duterte on Tuesday said they were surprised by a disclosure that the Senate impeachment court’s ruling authorizing subpoenas for her financial records had been largely drafted before oral arguments were heard, but stressed they were not questioning the court’s integrity.
Defense spokesperson Michael Poa was reacting to impeachment court spokesperson Regie Tongol’s statement that most portions of the ruling read by Presiding Officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero had already been prepared before the trial opened on 6 July.
“I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t surprised. But I don’t think we should cast aspersions on the integrity of the court. It is what it is. That was the resolution,” Poa told reporters.
On Monday, the impeachment court granted prosecutors’ request to subpoena Duterte’s bank, tax and Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) records in connection with allegations of unexplained wealth under Article II of the impeachment complaint.
Poa said the senator-judges may have already studied the legal issues before the hearing but remained open to changing their position after hearing both sides. He also rejected claims that the oral arguments were merely for show.
“At least we were able to ventilate the position of the defense, and the public heard the arguments of both the prosecution and the defense,” he said.
The defense had argued that the subpoenas were overly broad and infringed on statutory privacy protections, while prosecutors maintained the records were relevant and sufficiently specific to support the unexplained wealth charge.
Poa said the defense has yet to decide whether to challenge the ruling before the Supreme Court.
“We’re still studying our options. Before I ask the Vice President to make a decision, I have to present the pros and cons,” he said.
On the subpoena for Duterte’s tax records, Poa said presidential approval may still be required before the Bureau of Internal Revenue releases the documents, citing Section 71 of the National Internal Revenue Code, which protects taxpayer confidentiality.
He clarified that the same requirement does not apply to bank records or AMLC documents, which are governed by separate laws and procedures.
