“Under our Constitution, every accused is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. An accused has in her favor the presumption of innocence which the Bill of Rights guarantees.” ~Atty. Sheila Sison (Defense Lead Counsel)
Defense counsel Sheila Sison directly clashed with House prosecutors over broad bank records subpoena requests in the impeachment trial. Sison described the prosecution move to examine two decades of financial transactions as a fishing expedition 2.0.
Meanwhile, Representative Diokno defended the motion to uncover continuous unexplained wealth during public tenure. Consequently, Presiding Judge Chiz Escudero intervened to manage the fiery legal battle in open court.
House prosecutors demanded certified bank transactions and Anti-Money Laundering Council reports covering 2006 to 2025. However, Sison warned that probing private financial accounts across nearly twenty years violates constitutional limits.
She emphasized that impeachment charges must strictly cover acts committed during the current official term. Furthermore, Sison reminded the Senate tribunal that the burden of proof never shifts from the prosecution.
The Legal Debate: Pre-Term Wealth and Public Trust
In response, Representative Diokno countered that accumulated wealth before holding office directly impacts public fitness. He asserted that massive wealth gained in local posts continues to benefit a public official today.
Additionally, Diokno argued that public integrity serves as a continuing requirement for any government leader. Thus, prosecutors insisted that historical bank records remain material to establish continuous unexplained wealth.
“Unexplained wealth amassed prior to the term of a Vice President is relevant and material to her being an impeachable officer, because wealth of the magnitude of hundreds of millions or billions—when a local government official, for example, who later becomes a national official amasses hundreds of millions, if not billions of pesos, then that benefit continues today.”
On the other hand, Sison warned against repeating legislative overreach that invalidated earlier impeachment proceedings. She argued that broad incursions on private records violate the ruling in Duterte v. House of Representatives.
MORE: Day 1: Sheila Sison and Gerville Luistro Face Off Over Reading Impeachment Charges
“In a July 25, 2025 decision, the Supreme Court unanimously declared in Duterte v. House of Representatives, G.R. Nos. 278353 and 278359, that the impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives were tainted with grave abuse of discretion, rendering the articles of impeachment that the House transmitted last year to the Senate as void ab initio.”
Sison stated, “justice includes fairness,” adding that without fairness, political abuse inevitably happens. Therefore, she requested the Senate court to reject the broad investigation into private bank records.
Huling Hirit: Senate Court Orders Filings
To resolve the dispute, Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero directed both legal sides to submit position papers. Specifically, Escudero granted five days for both parties to submit their respective written filings.
Additionally, the tribunal scheduled oral arguments to allow full debate on the bank subpoena requests. Finally, Escudero ordered all filed motions uploaded to the Senate website for public transparency.
“The Chair hereby directs that all motions for the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum filed by either party be furnished to the opposing party and/or counsel before filing it before this Court in order to provide full disclosure and fairness. The Chair hereby directs that all motions for the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum filed by either party be furnished to the opposing party and/or counsel before filing it before this Court in order to provide full disclosure and fairness.”
