The Senate impeachment court has ruled that Vice President Sara Duterte cannot be compelled to respond to the prosecution’s requests for admission involving more than 100 matters, including bank records submitted as part of her impeachment trial.
Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero delivered the ruling on September 29, sustaining Duterte’s defense objection and saying she cannot be required to submit a written response under the request for admission. Her failure to respond also cannot be treated as an admission.
The prosecution had initially submitted 104 requests covering Duterte’s personal circumstances, previous public positions, her husband’s business interests and various financial records. The requests sought, among other things, confirmation of the existence, genuineness and authenticity of bank records obtained through subpoenas issued by the impeachment court.
House prosecutor Chel Diokno said the requests were intended to narrow the issues in dispute and avoid the need to present numerous witnesses to establish facts that the prosecution considered straightforward. The prosecution had estimated that Duterte’s admissions could eliminate the need for testimony from roughly 15 to 20 witnesses.
Duterte’s defense objected, arguing that compelling her to answer could violate her constitutional protection against self-incrimination. Her lawyers also maintained that an admission could function as testimony and should therefore receive the same constitutional protection against compelled self-incrimination.
The prosecution later withdrew its original request for admission and instead proposed that the defense enter into stipulations concerning the bank records. These would acknowledge that the accounts exist, that the records were produced by banks in response to court subpoenas, and that the documents are genuine and authentic copies of records maintained by those banks.
Despite the withdrawal, the impeachment court proceeded to address the legal issue to provide guidance for the continuing trial. Escudero said discovery procedures cannot be used as a substitute for the prosecution’s obligation to present competent evidence and establish the allegations against the respondent.
The ruling does not prevent the prosecution from presenting the subpoenaed financial records through other evidence and witnesses. The court had previously authorized subpoenas for Duterte’s bank, tax and Anti-Money Laundering Council records after finding the requested documents reasonably described and potentially relevant to the allegations under Article II of the impeachment case.
The decision therefore addresses how the prosecution may seek admissions from the respondent, while leaving the financial documents themselves available for presentation and examination under the rules governing the ongoing impeachment proceedings.
