House Prosecutor and Bicol Saro Party-list Representative Terry Ridon speaks during an interview at the Senate in this file photo taken in June 25, 2026. INQUIRER PHOTO / NIÑO JESUS ORBETA
MANILA, Philippines — The prosecution panel for Vice President Sara Duterte’s trial should ask the Senate Impeachment Court whether attempts to clarify senator-judges’ questions are no longer allowed, after Senator-judge Robin Padilla claimed that the lead prosecutor has no right to raise queries.
Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon, a member of the House of Representatives’ prosecution team, said in a press briefing on Thursday morning that they will have to clarify whether this will be the practice moving forward.
“It is important that the prosecution clarifies the things mentioned by Senator-judge Robin Padilia that the counsels, either from the prosecution or the defense, have nor right to ask questions. Maybe there will come a time that we will seek clarification from the Senate Impeachment Court if this is the actual situation and case now,” Ridon, speaking Filipino, said.
Article continues after this advertisement
“Because with how we look at it, it was a mere request for clarification — and I think there is nothing wrong with a prosecutor or a defense counsel asking clarification from the Senate Impeachment Court, if this is meant to clarify the question of senator-judges,” he added.
Ridon was referring to the incident between Padilla and lead public prosecutor Gerville Luistro during Wednesday’s trial, when Padilla was asking Luistro whether her view that witnesses with cases can testify should also apply to senator-judges facing cases.
When Luistro wanted to seek a clarification regarding what the specific question was, Padilla admonished the lead prosecutor and said she has no right to ask questions.
“Let us recall the actual transcript during the exchange between lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro, what Senator-judge Padilla said is ‘Does this mean, that the senator-judges here facing cases, they are not allowed by the Ombudsman to participate and they are not guilty, so what do you mean,'” Ridon said in Filipino.
“Lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro only asked for a clarification and Senator-judge Padilla answered that ‘You know, what I said is clear and you do not have the right to question.’ I think it is very important, moving forward, that the prosecution team seek clarity if this will be the rule of the Senate Impeachment Court,” he added.
Article continues after this advertisement
According to Ridon, such a clarification will be important since there may be instances where the prosecution cannot fully understand questions raised by senator-judges.
Tensions briefly flared towards the latter part of the ninth day of Duterte’s trial. After these questions, Padilla urged the prosecution to refrain from being “one-sided” — prompting reactions from lawyers serving as counsel for the prosecution.
Article continues after this advertisement
Padilla then called out the lawyers for making comments, saying that it interrupted his manifestation.
In a press briefing after the trial on Wednesday, 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.
READ: Padilla told: Prosec’s task is push case, be shocked if we defend the VP
“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.
READ: Luistro tells Padilla: Conviction is not a ground to disqualify witness
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.
Kapunan also admitted that it was them — lawyers for the prosecution — who were scolded by Padilla for disrupting his manifestation. The private lawyer reasoned out that they, as members of the bar, cannot help but react to the statements issued by the Senator-judge.
Padilla’s comments on his hope that the prosecution would not be one-sided came 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.
Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.
With this development, the prosecution will move on to discuss Article I, or the allegation that Duterte misused the confidential funds lodged within her offices from 2022 to 2023. /jpv