Impeachment court insists docs not in complaints vs VP can be subpoenaed

MANILA, Philippines — The Senate Impeachment Court has shot down the recurring claim made by Vice President Sara Duterte’s legal team about the prosecution using evidence not part of the original complaints against her, saying that documents can be the subject of subpoenas.

In its order dated November 5 and released to the media on Friday, the impeachment court has overruled the continuing objection made by Duterte’s lawyers regarding the prosecution’s formal offer of evidence — particularly allegations that the House of Representatives engaged in a “fishing expedition.”

Since the House committee on justice discussed the raps against Duterte last March 2026, the vice president’s camp has maintained that the impeachment proceedings must not prosper because some documents mentioned — which were eventually used — did not form part of the four complaints filed by private citizens.

Article continues after this advertisement

But according to the order penned by Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero, both the Senate sitting as the impeachment court and the House acting as the prosecutor have the power, under the 1987 Constitution, to issue subpoenas which may be used to support an impeachment case or allegation.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

“The Court OVERRULES the continuing objection founded on the non-attachment of the offered exhibits to the Impeachment Complaints or Articles of Impeachment and on their acquisition through subpoenas during trial,” the order read.

“Under the constitutional allocation of the House’s power to impeach and the Senate’s power to try and decide all impeachment cases, the Articles of Impeachment frame the ultimate facts of the charge. Documents subpoenaed during trial may supply evidentiary facts proving those allegations,” it added.

According to the Senate Impeachment Court, the admissibility of the documents would rely on whether it has any relation to the allegations against the respondent.

It also clarified that failure to attach documents to the Articles of Impeachment does not disqualify the evidence.

Article continues after this advertisement

“The admissibility of such documents, however, depends on their logical relation to the principal fact in issue framed by the Articles, or to a collateral fact from which the existence or non-existence of that principal fact may be inferred,” it stated.

“Accordingly, any failure to attach documentary evidence to the initiating complaint or Articles does not, by itself, require rejection upon formal offer. Neither does mere description of resort to process or discovery as a ‘fishing expedition’ automatically create ground for excluding every subpoenaed document,” it added.

Article continues after this advertisement

In the defense’s October 30 comment on the prosecution’s formal offer of evidence, Duterte’s lawyers asked the Senate Impeachment Court to reject the offer as the records are supposedly inadmissible, irrelevant, and insufficient to establish her alleged impeachable offenses.

The defense claimed that the prosecution’s evidence amounted to an “impermissible fishing expedition” and should therefore be considered “inadmissible as evidence.”

READ: Sara Duterte camp: Prosecution evidence ‘inadmissible’ in Senate trial

This is not the first time that Duterte and her camp claimed that the proceedings in the House and the actions of the prosecution panel were a fishing expedition.  When the prosecution requested that a subpoena be issued for the bank records under the name of Duterte and her husband Manases Carpio, the defense called it a fishing expedition.

However, public prosecutor Akbayan party-list Rep. Chel Diokno and counsel for the prosecution Benjamin Tolosa said that the defense should stop calling the proceedings as such as the request for a subpoena targeted specific documents.

Last July 20, the Senate Impeachment Court granted the prosecution panel’s request, saying that the records are prima facie relevant and material to Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.

The impeachment court also said that the request for a subpoena cannot be considered a fishing expedition because they are intended to establish a factual baseline for assessing whether Duterte’s assets and financial transactions during her term are disproportionate to her lawful income.

READ: Impeachment court grants subpoena for Duterte’s financial records

Last Tuesday, public prosecutor and Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon called out Duterte’s legal team for still using harping arguments in answering the formal offer of evidence, saying that a good way to describe the defense panel is that it is “defenseless.”Ridon said he does not understand why the defense panel for the impeachment trial insists on the same arguments when such claims have been disproven again and again.

READ: Defenseless defense: Ridon says VP camp insisting on wrong arguments

The same order from the Senate Impeachment Court admitted several pieces of evidence from the prosecution, but the request to admit the Commission on Audit (COA) documents on confidential funds as evidence was rejected, even if it was meant to corroborate charges under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.

Article II refers to the allegation that Duterte has unexplained wealth, and that she failed to declare these in her SALNs (Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth) while in office as vice president.  It is the only remaining charge against Duterte after the prosecution withdrew three of the four articles last October 13.

According to the court, since Article I or the alleged confidential fund misuse within Duterte’s offices had been withdrawn, such exhibits presented in the dropped charge “may not be re-offered or collaterally raised in relation to Article II.”

The same exclusion applied to COA documents that flagged the Department of Education’s confidential funds disbursements from 2022 to 2023 — when the agency was still under Duterte.

Other pieces of evidence were also admitted, but with certain limitations.

The Office of the Ombudsman records, particularly Duterte’s various SALNs from 2007 to 2025, were also admitted.  However, the declarations before her term as vice president would only be used “as a starting financial baseline.”

Duterte’s trial has been on a break since October 13 and will resume on November 9 with the defense presenting evidence to dispute Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

With the withdrawal of the articles, Duterte’s legal team is only required to mount a defense for Article II.  Should the Senate Impeachment Court convict Duterte, she will be removed from office and may be perpetually disqualified from holding public office. /ms