The defense team of Vice President Sara Duterte said the Senate impeachment court's decision granting the prosecution's request to subpoena her financial records was not a major setback as it weighs possible legal remedies, including elevating the matter to the Supreme Court.

In a press briefing after the decision was rendered, defense counsel Michael Poa said the ruling was one the defense had anticipated despite its strong opposition to the prosecution's motion.

"The possibility of this happening is something we also anticipated. So hindi naman natin masasabi na malaking-malaking setback ito (we cannot really say this is a major setback)," Poa told reporters on Monday evening, July 20.

Poa said the defense maintains that it had strong legal grounds to oppose the subpoena request but acknowledged that the matter ultimately rested with the impeachment court.

"We submit to the decision of the impeachment court, but, of course, without prejudice to legal remedies available under the law," he said.

Asked whether the defense could seek relief from the Supreme Court, Poa said the option remains available but stressed that no decision has been made.

"There is a possibility of going up because, as I mentioned earlier, everything is subject to judicial review depending on the circumstances available. But we have not made that decision yet," he said.

Poa said the legal team must first discuss its next steps internally and consult Vice President Duterte before deciding whether to pursue any judicial remedy.

"That remedy is always available, but as to whether it is possible, siyempre (of course), anything is possible,” he said.

“But are we going to do it? Hindi pa namin napag-uusapan (We have not discussed it yet)," he added.

The Senate impeachment court earlier decided to grant the prosecution's request to subpoena Duterte's bank records, income tax returns, and AMLC records in support of Article II of the Articles of Impeachment, which alleges unexplained wealth.

During oral arguments before the ruling, the defense argued that the prosecution's request amounted to a "fishing expedition" because it sought nearly two decades' worth of Duterte's financial records without identifying specific documents to support the allegation.

The defense also maintained that Section 8-A of the Anti-Money Laundering Act bars the disclosure of AMLC records and contains no exception for impeachment proceedings, unlike the Bank Secrecy Law, while prosecutors argued the subpoena was necessary to establish Duterte's financial baseline and that the admissibility of any records would still be determined later during trial.

Despite opposing the subpoena, Poa said the legal battle over the records is far from over because the impeachment court has yet to determine whether any documents produced in response to the subpoena will be admitted as evidence.

"Tama naman sa subpoena stage pa lang ito. So tingnan muna natin (This is only the subpoena stage. Let's first see) how the evidence will be appreciated,” he said.

Poa reiterated that while the defense is evaluating its legal options, it fully respects the impeachment court's ruling at this stage of the proceedings.