Vice President Sara Duterte’s lawyers signaled a new line of defense in her impeachment trial, vowing to challenge the admissibility of tax, bank and anti-money laundering records that prosecutors hope to use to support allegations of confidential fund misuse.

Defense spokesperson Michael Poa said the legal team is examining whether the release of Duterte’s tax records complied with exceptions under the National Internal Revenue Code, even after President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. authorized the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) to turn over the documents to the impeachment court.

“Our focus here in the legal team is that it’s already there. It is what it is. There’s an approval. Now, whether that approval already complies with the exceptions under the tax code, that’s one thing that we’ll look at,” Poa told reporters.

The Senate impeachment court earlier ordered the production of Duterte’s tax records, bank documents and Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) records as part of its proceedings on Article I of the impeachment complaint, which alleges the vice president misused confidential funds while serving as vice president and Education secretary.

The tax records were subsequently submitted by the BIR after Malacañang invoked an exception under the tax code that allows disclosure in certain official proceedings.

Poa, however, argued that the court must still determine whether the documents were lawfully obtained and properly admitted into evidence.

He cited confidentiality provisions under Section 270 of the National Internal Revenue Code, which penalizes the unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer information, and noted that AMLC records are similarly protected under the Anti-Money Laundering Act.

While both laws provide exceptions, Poa said the defense does not accept that those exceptions automatically apply to Duterte’s case.

He also pointed to the Bank Secrecy Law, which recognizes impeachment proceedings as an exception to bank confidentiality rules, but argued that the existence of an exception does not automatically make financial records admissible evidence.

“The question is whether the requirements under the law have been met,” Poa said.

The Senate impeachment court last month granted prosecutors' request to subpoena Duterte’s bank, tax and AMLC records despite objections from several senator-judges and members of the defense panel. 

The ruling allowed prosecutors access to documents they argue are necessary to establish how confidential funds were handled and whether public money was misused.

Prosecutors are currently presenting evidence under Article I, which centers on allegations that more than P600 million in confidential funds were withdrawn in cash between December 2022 and July 2023. 

During recent hearings, former Land Bank officials testified on the release of the funds, while prosecutors presented government checks and bank records documenting the withdrawals.

The defense, however, has maintained that the hearings so far have focused only on the withdrawal process and not on proving that the funds were illegally spent.

“We don’t dispute anything because the documents are there,” Poa said when asked why defense lawyers conducted only limited cross-examinations of prosecution witnesses this week.

He said the defense did not challenge the authenticity of records presented by former Land Bank officials and instead focused on clarifying testimony that suggested irregularities in the handling of cash withdrawals.

One issue raised during the hearing involved testimony that cash was brought out through a fire exit at a Land Bank branch inside the Department of Education compound. Poa said the route was neither unusual nor improper given the branch’s location.

As the proceedings continue, prosecutors are expected to present officials from the Commission on Audit in an effort to establish whether confidential funds were spent in accordance with government rules.

“Where it went, that will definitely be discussed in the next few hearings,” Poa said.

The defense, meanwhile, said it is preparing for future witnesses, including individuals linked to acknowledgment receipts that became controversial during House investigations into Duterte’s confidential fund expenditures.

Poa confirmed prosecutors had previously indicated they might present a witness associated with the name “Mary Grace Piattos,” one of several names that lawmakers questioned during congressional inquiries and alleged could be fictitious.

The vice president’s legal team declined to discuss details of confidential fund operations, saying such matters should be addressed through witness testimony rather than public statements.