“If she has nothing to hide, why not open her bank records?” — The question has followed Vice President Sara Duterte since prosecutors sought access to her financial records in the Senate impeachment trial to support allegations of unexplained wealth.

Her lawyers, however, say the issue goes beyond bank secrecy. Defense spokesperson Michael Poa on Thursday argued that voluntarily disclosing Duterte's financial records would undermine a fundamental principle of the country's justice system—that it is the prosecution, not the accused, that bears the burden of proving its case.

“Natural na ganun ang nagiging sentimyento, pero at the risk of sounding too technical, ang punto naman namin kasi is ano ba ang legal principle sa sistema natin? It's a presumption of innocence,” Poa said in a television interview. 

“Hindi naman pwedeng sabihin natin na lang na, ‘Ay, sa tingin ko may ginawa kang pagkakamali, ikaw na maglabas ng mga ebidensya kasi kung wala ka namang tinatago, hindi mo ‘yan pipigilan,’” he added.

Poa said requiring Duterte to surrender her bank and tax records simply because she is facing allegations would set a dangerous precedent.

“Second, kung ganun na lang din, ‘wag na tayong mag-search warrant, ‘wag na rin tayong mag-all of these compulsory processes kasi parading ang Hamon naman pala is dapat ang defense ang nagbibigay ng ebidensya,” the defense spokesperson said.

He acknowledged that the argument "may not be popular" but maintained that lawyers have a duty to invoke every legal protection available to their clients.

The Senate impeachment court on Monday granted prosecutors' request to subpoena Duterte's and her husband Manases Carpio's peso-denominated bank records, tax records and Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) documents. 

The court, however, denied requests covering foreign currency deposits, citing protections under the Foreign Currency Deposit Act.

House prosecutors sought the records as they attempted to establish allegations that Duterte accumulated unexplained wealth and improperly handled confidential funds—charges that form part of the impeachment complaint accusing her of culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust and other impeachable offenses.

'Fatally overbroad'

During oral arguments, the defense described the subpoenas sought by prosecutors as "fatally overbroad."

Poa argued that impeachable offenses can only be committed while an official occupies an impeachable office. Yet prosecutors were seeking financial documents dating back to 2007, covering periods when Duterte served as Davao City vice mayor and mayor, years before she became vice president in 2022.

House prosecutor and Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno countered that the request was supported by precedent, pointing to the 2012 impeachment trial of former Chief Justice Renato Corona, where the Senate allowed scrutiny of financial records predating his appointment as chief justice.

“That was actually a good point on his part, let’s be fair,” Poa said of Diokno’s argument. 

“But on my part, I did not think it was a lost cause. Why? Because although, yes, mayroon tayong precedent in terms of the Corona impeachment, from the time Corona impeachment occurred to what is happening… there were supervening things in the interim,” he added.

Poa cited amendments on Section 8-A of the Anti-Money Laundering Act that strengthened the confidentiality of AMLC records and a later Supreme Court ruling clarifying the scope of impeachable offenses.

For prosecutors, however, the longer timeline is essential. They argued that years of financial records are needed to determine whether Duterte's assets and transactions correspond with her lawful sources of income and to establish whether wealth accumulated during her years in public office can be adequately explained. 

The defense, meanwhile, maintained that prosecutors already bear the responsibility of proving their accusations and cannot use broad subpoenas to search for evidence that may or may not support their case.

The Senate impeachment court ultimately sided with prosecutors. However, the court's ruling does not automatically make the records admissible as evidence. 

Prosecutors must still establish their relevance during the trial, while the defense is expected to challenge both the documents and the conclusions drawn from them.

Fine-tuning the defense

Beyond the legal battle over financial records, Poa also acknowledged that the defense team has been paying attention to public reaction to its courtroom strategy.

Observers noted that the defense appeared more restrained during the oral arguments, particularly in Poa's exchanges with Diokno.

Poa attributed the change to differences in litigation style rather than a deliberate shift in strategy.

"Different lawyers simply have different styles. Some are more aggressive, while others are calmer," he said, adding that it was "a privilege" to argue opposite Diokno.

Still, Poa said the defense has not ignored public feedback.

"As to how the public received it, we also can’t deny that when we read things online, no matter how much we try block out the noise, I think it’s important for us to also learn from comments because most are even constructive,” he said.