THE Senate impeachment court has ruled that respondent Vice President Sara Duterte cannot be compelled to respond to the prosecution’s requests for admission involving more than 100 bank records.
In a ruling delivered by Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero on Tuesday, September 29, 2026, the court sustained Duterte’s defense objection, citing her constitutional right against self-incrimination.
“If the request is allowed, any material and relevant matter of facts requested for answer will be tantamount to compelling the respondent to be a witness against herself. Her failure to answer a request for admission, on the other hand, will be deemed an admission of fact requested to be admitted,” Escudero said.
“Moreover, Rule 26 requires the answer to be under oath, exposes the party requested to the additional peril of being held liable for perjury, and thus constitutes compulsion that is not allowed under the Constitution,” he added.
On September 8, the House prosecution panel served Duterte’s defense with 104 requests for admission covering her personal circumstances, former public offices, her and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio’s, business interests, and various bank and other financial records.
Invoking Rule 26 of the Rules of Court, which allows a party to request admission of the genuineness of documents or the truth of relevant facts to narrow the issues and avoid unnecessary presentation of evidence, the prosecution sought Duterte’s confirmation of the authenticity of bank documents submitted pursuant to subpoenas and whether the accounts identified in the records belonged to her individually or jointly with others.
The prosecution said the admissions could narrow the issues and potentially dispense with the testimony of 15 to 20 witnesses.
“While the impeachment court welcomes the prosecution’s desire to narrow the issues for trial, identify matters genuinely in dispute, and avoid unnecessary proof of uncontroverted matters, any such measure to expedite the proceedings must always yield to the protection of the substantial rights of the respondent under the Constitution,” Escudero said.
The impeachment court initially gave Duterte until September 23 to respond to the requests.
Duterte’s defense objected to the requests, raising concerns that they could shift the burden of proof to the respondent and potentially infringe on marital and filial privileges.
“In the same vein, the Court deems it necessary to state that discovery cannot be used as a substitute for presenting competent evidence. Procedural due process requires the prosecution to establish the charges through competent evidence and that respondent be afforded a fair and meaningful opportunity to contest such evidence. The prosecution cannot shift its burden of proof to the respondent through the simple expedience of a request for admission,” Escudero said.
On Monday, September 28, House prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno said the prosecution was withdrawing its request for admission and instead proposed that Duterte’s defense enter into stipulations on the existence and authenticity of the bank records. The proposed stipulations included that the accounts exist, that the records were produced by banks pursuant to subpoenas issued by the impeachment court, and that the records are genuine and authentic copies of those maintained by the banks.
Escudero, however, noted that stipulations require the parties’ consent and cannot be imposed by the court.
The court also denied the defense’s request to expunge the prosecution’s request for admission.
“The request, the objection, and this ruling shall remain in the record as part of the proceedings, but with the admonition and reminder to Senator Judges that the request for admission shall have no evidentiary, factual or prejudicial effect against the respondent,” Escudero said. (TPM/SunStar Philippines)