Defense counsel Sheila Sison listens as Michael Poa takes the witness stand during the 21st day of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial at the Senate in Pasay City on Wednesday, September 2, 2026. Poa, who previously served as a Department of Education official and spokesperson for Duterte’s defense team, was called to testify on the disbursement of confidential funds during Duterte’s tenure as education secretary. Maria Tan, ABS-CBN News/File
MANILA — Vice President Sara Duterte's lead defense counsel in her impeachment case voiced Monday the defense's objection to the prosecution panel's request for their side to authenticate subpoenaed bank documents.
This comes after the defense had formally objected in writing to the prosecution's request for Duterte or her legal team to authenticate the records and confirm ownership of bank accounts, as the court continued to hear allegations that the vice president amassed unexplained wealth.
Early in the proceedings before the Senate impeachment court on Monday, lawyer Sheila Sison cited a 1969 Supreme Court decision and other rulings affirming an accused party's right against self-incrimination and right to remain silent.
"If the Supreme Court has applied the right against self-incrimination and the right to at least remain silent as far or as early as 1969 in a mere administrative proceeding, because the proceeding as it had determined, carries with it some penal sanction, then all the more that this should be respected in an impeachment case," Sison said.
Sison was responding to an earlier manifestation by House prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno, who said the prosecution was willing to withdraw its request for admission on the bank records if the defense agreed to stipulate on certain matters concerning the documents.
Diokno said the proposed stipulations would not require the respondent to admit liability, the truth or accuracy of every entry, or the prosecution's interpretation of the bank transactions.
The congressman, who represents the Akbayan party-list, explained that the request for admission was intended to expedite the trial.
But Sison raised a concern regarding Diokno's proposal to stipulate on the documents.
"Hindi pa nga ho nasisimulan ang pagmamarka ng mga dokumento sa mga bangko. In fact, I was just informed that more documents are set today for marking," she said.
"Ibig sabihin, wala ring sapat na panahon para makita ng respondent at ng kaniyang mga abogado ang mga dokumento na ito, and there will be no basis for any stipulation today or even tomorrow or even on Wednesday," she added.
Sison suggested that stipulations on the documents should be made "when the prosecution will make its offer on the testimonial evidence accompanying any documentary evidence that they would want to present before this court."
Sison also pointed out that under the impeachment court’s rules, a respondent’s failure to respond to a request for admission could result in an "implied admission," which she described as "akin to a testimony" and said the defense likewise objected to.
"Kung ang garantiya ng Konstitusyon natin ay pinagbabawal ang compulsion sa isang respondent o akusado na mag-testify against himself, dapat ding pagbawalan 'yong pagtatangka na kumuha ng tinatawag na admission whether this is expressed through a response sa request for admission or implied," she said.
Presiding officer Sen. Francis Escudero said the court would issue a decision on the matter within the week.
RELATED VIDEO