Lawyers for Vice President Sara Duterte on Monday rejected the prosecution’s offer to stipulate on her bank records submitted to the impeachment court, arguing that doing so would violate her constitutional right against self-incrimination.

Lead defense lawyer Sheila Sison said the right against self-incrimination applied to both criminal and administrative proceedings, citing Supreme Court precedents, including Arsenio Pascual Jr. vs Board of Medical Examiners.

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

Citing Bermudez vs Castillo in 1937, Sison said the Supreme Court had recognized that an administrative case could still have a “criminal or penal aspect” that could disadvantage a respondent.

Sison maintained her objection to the prosecution’s request, saying the impeachment court had “consistently” treated admissions as a form of testimony.

“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 defense objection came after public prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno asked Duterte to admit the existence, genuineness, and authenticity of her bank records to help expedite the proceedings.

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

He said the request was intended to establish “self-evident and factual matters” already part of the court record and to narrow the issues and reduce the number of witnesses the prosecution would need to present.

Diokno also noted that Duterte’s lawyers had not questioned the authenticity of the documents and that the banks that provided the records under subpoena had no reason to submit fabricated documents.

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

He argued that the request did not violate Duterte’s right against self-incrimination because it would not require her to take the witness stand, make an oral confession, or create evidence that was not already available to the parties and the court.

Diokno also said Duterte’s admission would not compel her to “create evidence against herself” because the records were her own financial documents.

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

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

Diokno said agreeing to the stipulation would allow the prosecution to dispense with 10 to 20 witnesses who are expected to testify on the bank records.