House Prosecutors Rebut Call for Neutrality in VP Duterte-Carpio's Impeachment Trial

HOUSE PROSECUTORS on Thursday defended their role in Vice-President Sara Duterte-Carpio’s impeachment trial, saying they are expected to advocate for the articles of impeachment, while neutrality is the responsibility of the senator-judges who will decide the case. At an online briefing, Party-list Rep. James Mark Terry L. Ridon and Dinagat Islands Rep. Arlene “Kaka” Bag-ao responded to remarks by Senator-Judge Robinhood C. Padilla, who on Wednesday urged the prosecution not to be “one-sided.” “The prosecution cannot be neutral because this is an adversarial proceeding,” Mr. Ridon said, noting that prosecutors are tasked with presenting evidence supporting the impeachment charges while the defense seeks to rebut those allegations. He noted that Mr. Padilla later clarified that his comments referred to what he viewed as a possible double standard in the treatment of witnesses and senator-judges, including public remarks by some prosecutors on the number of votes needed for conviction. Ms. Bag-ao said advocacy by both sides is consistent with due process because each party is given an equal opportunity to present its case before an impartial impeachment court. She said neutrality applies to the senator-judges, who must weigh the evidence presented by both sides before deciding whether the allegations have been proven. “In the end, you will decide based on whether the allegations were proven,” she said in Filipino. “Definitely, you will decide for or against.” The prosecution panel also said Mr. Padilla is free to ask clarificatory questions if he thinks they would help clarify the parties’ respective roles, although Mr. Ridon said each senator-judge ultimately decides whom to question. The panel denied suggestions that Mr. Padilla’s remarks had frustrated the prosecution. “We don’t feel frustrated, we don’t feel disappointment on the manner by which questions have been asked,” Mr. Ridon said, adding that differing legal interpretations are expected in a public impeachment trial. “It is par for the course, and whatever the question is, our panel will answer it,” he added. The prosecution said any differences with senator-judges would be addressed through the impeachment proceedings, stressing that presenting its case vigorously does not diminish the Senate’s constitutional duty to decide the case impartially. Ms. Bag-ao added that the exchange could help the public better understand the distinct roles of the prosecution, the defense and the senator-judges in the impeachment process. — Pexcel John Bacon