Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense team is dismissing unfavorable survey results as political noise while intensifying its efforts to block or weaken the impact of her tax, bank and anti-money laundering records in the ongoing Senate impeachment trial.
Defense spokesperson Michael Poa said the legal team has no intention of dwelling on public opinion after Malacañang claimed that Duterte’s declining numbers in a recent OCTA Research survey showed Filipinos were rejecting her impeachment narrative.
For the defense, however, the numbers apparently depend on which survey is being discussed.
Poa pointed out that other polling firms had released more favorable results for the vice president, arguing that survey findings should not be treated as definitive because responses may vary depending on how questions are framed.
“We’re not too reliant on surveys,” Poa said, adding that the team would first examine the questions asked before drawing conclusions from any poll.
He also said Duterte had personally instructed her lawyers to ignore the political battle and concentrate on defending her before the Senate impeachment court.
But while the defense insists that public ratings are irrelevant, the latest surveys paint a divided picture of Duterte’s political standing.
OCTA Research reported that her trust rating dropped by eight percentage points, from 55 percent to 47 percent. Her performance rating also declined by five points, from 50 percent to 45 percent.
The survey, conducted from July 4 to 11 among 1,200 respondents, had a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. also suffered declines in the same survey, with his trust rating falling from 54 percent to 49 percent and his performance rating dropping from 55 percent to 47 percent.
Other surveys were more favorable to Duterte. A Social Weather Stations poll gave her a 58 percent satisfaction rating and a “good” net satisfaction score of +31, slightly higher than the +29 she received in the previous quarter.
The conflicting results have fueled another political dispute outside the Senate, even as the impeachment trial turns toward the more consequential question: what happened to Duterte’s confidential funds?
Defense Targets Tax, Bank and AMLC Records
The Senate impeachment court is hearing Article I of the complaint, which accuses Duterte of misusing confidential funds while serving as vice president and secretary of education.
Prosecutors have begun presenting financial documents that could shed light on how the money was withdrawn, handled and ultimately spent.
The Bureau of Internal Revenue recently submitted Duterte’s tax records after Marcos authorized their release under an exception in the National Internal Revenue Code.
The impeachment court also ordered the production of her bank records and documents from the Anti-Money Laundering Council.
Despite the presidential authorization and Senate orders, Duterte’s defense said it would continue challenging whether the records were obtained and presented in accordance with the law.
Poa acknowledged that the documents were already before the court but said the defense would still examine whether the release of the tax records properly complied with statutory exceptions.
The team is also expected to question whether the tax, bank and AMLC documents can be formally admitted as evidence.
Poa argued that taxpayer information remains confidential under the Tax Code and that AMLC records are similarly protected by law. Although both laws provide exceptions, he maintained that those exceptions do not automatically make the documents admissible in Duterte’s case.
He also claimed that while impeachment is recognized as an exception under the Bank Secrecy Law, prosecutors must still satisfy evidentiary requirements before the records can be used against the vice president.
The strategy signals that the defense may focus heavily on how the evidence was obtained and introduced—not simply on what the financial records may reveal.
Defense Admits Documents Are Authentic
During an earlier hearing, Duterte’s lawyers conducted only limited cross-examinations of former Land Bank officials who testified about confidential fund withdrawals.
Poa said there was little reason to question the witnesses at length because the defense was not disputing the authenticity of the documents.
“The documents are there,” he said.
Instead, the defense concentrated on testimony involving the use of a fire exit during one of the cash withdrawals.
Poa said he wanted to eliminate any suggestion that using the fire exit indicated wrongdoing. He explained that the Land Bank branch was located inside the Department of Education compound and maintained that the route used was not suspicious or improper.
Still, the brief questioning left a bigger issue hanging over the proceedings: if the withdrawal documents are authentic, where did the confidential funds go?
Prosecutors Yet to Trace the Money
Poa argued that the prosecution has so far focused largely on the withdrawal process and has yet to establish the final destination of the money.
He said the issue of where the funds went would likely be tackled in succeeding hearings.
Officials from the Commission on Audit are expected to testify as prosecutors attempt to establish whether the confidential funds were properly used, documented and liquidated.
The prosecution may also present a witness identified as “Mary Grace Piattos,” a name that became controversial during congressional investigations into Duterte’s confidential expenses.
Lawmakers had questioned acknowledgment receipts containing names such as “Mary Grace Piattos,” “Miggy Mango” and “Kokoy Villamin,” alleging that some of the listed recipients may have been fictitious.
Poa said the defense was prepared to cross-examine anyone called by the prosecution but refused to discuss whether aliases were used in confidential fund operations.
He argued that witnesses—not lawyers—should explain the identities written on the receipts.
For now, Duterte’s camp is trying to keep the impeachment battle inside the courtroom and away from the surveys.
But as prosecutors move closer to the financial trail, the vice president’s public ratings may become the least of her problems.
