Lawyers of Vice President Sara Duterte pushed back against the prosecution panel’s offer for stipulation on her bank records that were received by the impeachment court, arguing that the admission on the financial documents violates their client’s right against self-incrimination.

Lead defense lawyer Atty. Sheila Sison stressed that the invocation of the right was applicable in both criminal and administrative proceedings, recalling precedents set in cases before the Supreme Court such as the case of Arsenio Pascual Jr vs Board of Medical Examiners.

“The broad all embracing sweep of the self-incrimination clause whenever appropriately invoked has been accorded to recognition by this court ever since the adoption of the Constitution,” Sison explained, reading the ruling of the aforementioned case.

Highlighting a separate verdict in the case of Bermudez vs Castillo in 1937, the lawyer said that it was established that despite a case being administrative in nature, the same still possessed “criminal or penal aspect” that would disadvantage a respondent.

Maintaining her aversion to the offer, Sison stressed that the impeachment court had “consistently” treated admissions as a form of testimony, further reiterating their objection on the same.

“If the guarantee of our constitution prohibits the compelling of a respondent to testify against himself, the court should disallow an attempt to get an admission whether this is expressed through a response to a request for admission or implied by the operation of Rule 26,” she said.

The objections of the lead defense lawyer came after public prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno requested for Duterte’s admission on her bank records to expedite the proceedings through stipulating on “self-evident and factual matters” that were part of the court’s records.

“Among others, the respondent was simply requested to admit or deny the existence, genuineness, and authenticity of these bank records,” Diokno said.

The lawmaker noted that their request for admission was not intended to “alter the burden of proof or to compel the respondent to establish the prosecution’s case,” rather it was meant to narrow issues and reduce the witnesses their group would present.

He likewise expressed that Duterte’s lawyers did not raise any argument with respect to the authenticity of the documents and that the banks that were subpoenaed had no motive to submit fake or fabricated financial documents.

“These are known banks who would not submit fake documents to the court. They know how important this case is. They know the whole nation is watching,” Diokno stated.

Diokno would also argue that the sought admission did not violate the Vice President’s right against self-incrimination as the request did not “require her to take the witness stand, leave an oral confession, or create evidence that is not already available to the parties and to the court.”

His reasoning further rested on the position that an admission on the part of Duterte did not compel her to “create evidence against herself” as it was her own records that were being stipulated on.

“These stipulations would not require the respondent to admit liability, the truth, or accuracy of every entry, or the prosecution’s interpretation of any transaction,” he stressed.

“The respondent would remain free to contest the relevance, meaning evidentiary weight and legal effect of the records,” he added.

If the stipulation is agreed upon, Diokno said that they would be able to dispense with a total of between 10 to 20 witnesses who were meant to testify on the records.

Noting the arguments of both parties, presiding officer Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero would be issuing an official ruling on the matter on Tuesday, 29 September, after the testimony of Davao City Mayor Sebastian “Baste” Duterte.