Padilla told: Prosecutor’s job is to push case, not be neutral

MANILA, Philippines — Senator-judge Robinhood Padilla has been reminded that the duty of the prosecution panel in an impeachment case revolves around pushing the case against the respondent, which in this case, is Vice President Sara Duterte. In a press briefing on Wednesday, after the ninth day of the impeachment trial, both lead public prosecutor Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro and counsel for the prosecution Lorna Kapunan stressed that the role of the prosecution is to prosecute Duterte, and it is the defense’s duty to prove her innocence. The two lawyers said this after Padilla, in his manifestation during the latter part of the trial, called on the prosecution to refrain from being “one-sided.” But according to Luistro, it would be a shock if the prosecution chooses neutrality—and an even bigger surprise if they defend Duterte. “Well, with all due respect to Senator-judge Robin Padilla, apparently this impeachment trial is adversarial—it is clearly why there is a prosecution; it is (for us) to establish the case. That’s why there is a defense panel, to defend the innocence of the respondent. So it is very much anticipated that the prosecution is biased towards presenting the case, presenting the evidence,” Luistro said. “Maybe it is surprising if the prosecution will be neutral, and even more confusing if we defend the respondent,” she added. Kapunan said that Luistro is being “very diplomatic,” suggesting that she would have given a more direct answer. Eventually, Kapunan said that it is the nature of the beast—that the prosecution prosecutes, and the defense defends. “I think Cong. Jinky (Luistro) is very diplomatic in her answer, because if that was me, I am gentlelady but a bit rude. But I’ve always deferred; I’ve always said that sometimes the Senate impeachment hearings are in black and white, and we’re very appreciative that Senator Robin always brings color and surprise and excitement,” she said. “But the prosecution really is for the prosecution, and the defense is for the defense. As we say, it is the nature of the beast,” she added. Kapunan also admitted that it was them—lawyers for the prosecution—who were scolded by Padilla for disrupting his manifestation. The private lawyer reasoned that they, as members of the bar, cannot help but react to the statements issued by the Senator-judge. “During the hearing, we were awakened and scolded while being in the front row, so may I use this opportunity to apologize to Senator-judge Robin; there was no intent to disrespect him. But of course, if you are a lawyer and you are engaged in litigation, you sometimes show emotes, they know that,” she said. “This is not an emote where you do drama, but it is an instinctive reaction; there was really no intent to disrespect him when he said—especially us in the front row, we stared at each other, only to find out that it was us in the front row being scolded. So Senator Robin, you said we are friends, forgive us, we won’t do it again,” she added. Padilla made the comment that he wishes the prosecution would not be one-sided, after questioning the prosecution over the changing affidavits of former police officer Arturo Lascañas. Lascañas’ affidavit on Duterte being one of the many architects of the past administration’s anti-drug war was brought up during discussions on the Vice President’s threat against high-ranking officials, as proof of her alleged penchant for violence. READ: Lascañas’ EJK claims against Sara Duterte surface at trial The impeachment court has finished discussing Article IV of the Articles of Impeachment. Article IV deals with Duterte’s threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., first lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and former House of Representatives Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, made in an online press briefing last November 23, 2024. In that online press briefing, Duterte was asked by a vlogger to take care, as she may be in danger. The Vice President then responded by urging people not to worry about her as she has already talked to a person about killing the Marcos couple and Romualdez if she herself gets killed. The defense panel has maintained even before the impeachment trial that Duterte’s statements were part of free speech. However, several government officials and prosecutors believe it was a grave threat—regardless of whether or not the Vice President executed a contract with an assassin to kill the three. /cb