THE House prosecution panel has rejected calls for neutrality in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Z. Duterte, stressing that its constitutional role is to advocate for the case, while ‘impartiality rests with the senator judges.’
Lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro made the clarification after Senator-Judge Robinhood Padilla remarked that the prosecution appeared ‘one-sided.’
‘With all due respect to Senator-Judge Robin Padilla, apparently this impeachment trial is adversarial,’ Luistro said.
Luistro, who represents Batangas, explained that impeachment proceedings are inherently adversarial. In such a process, the prosecution is tasked with establishing the case and presenting evidence, while the defense is responsible for protecting the respondent and challenging the claims.
She emphasized that it would be unusual for prosecutors to act neutrally or defend the respondent, adding that neutrality is expected only from the judges. Senator-judges, she said, must remain impartial as they evaluate arguments from both sides before reaching a decision.
Deputy Speaker Janette Garin echoed this view, noting that the House acts as prosecutor after determining that an impeachment complaint meets legal requirements and is backed by probable cause. She added that more than 250 lawmakers voted to impeach Duterte before the Articles of Impeachment were transmitted to the Senate.
Garin, who represents Iloilo, stressed that neutrality lies with the senator-judges, who must carefully hear, analyze, and deliberate on all aspects of the case before deciding.
Private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan also expressed respect for the senator-judges, saying there was no intention to offend Padilla and acknowledging his active participation during proceedings.
‘We’re very appreciative that Senator Robin always brings color and surprise and excitement,’ Kapunan said.
‘There was really no intent to disrespect him,’ she added.
Prosecutors Terry Ridon and Kaka Bag-ao, meanwhile, reiterated that presenting and proving the Articles of Impeachment is their defined role and should not be confused with the impartial duty of the court.
They explained that the prosecution and defense naturally take opposing positions in a trial. They emphasized that this does not undermine fairness, as both sides are given the opportunity to present their arguments before an impartial tribunal.
They clarified that while the prosecution advocates for accountability, the defense is equally free to contest the evidence. Meanwhile, senator-judges are responsible for weighing both sides and deciding based on the record.
The panel also dismissed claims that Padilla’s questions had discouraged them, saying differences in legal interpretation are expected in open proceedings. They maintained that their responses would remain respectful and grounded in the rules of the impeachment court.
Bag-ao, who represents Dinagat Island, added that such exchanges could help the public better understand the roles of the parties and the importance of accountability in the process.
Meanwhile, Luistro also voiced confidence that senator-judges would uphold their constitutional duty of impartiality despite intense public scrutiny. She said questions raised during proceedings-even those that may seem favorable to one side-should be seen as part of efforts to fully understand the evidence.
‘Well, we wish to believe that they remain conscious of their constitutional duty, especially when it comes to maintaining political neutrality. Let’s consider their statements and questions as expressions of curiosity rather than bias,’ Luistro said.
She underscored that Senate rules require decisions to be based on the evidence presented and constitutional standards governing impeachment trials.
Kapunan, for her part, noted that not only the vice president but also the senator-judges are effectively under public scrutiny. She urged Filipinos to carefully evaluate the evidence, testimonies, and conduct of all participants in the trial.
She also reminded the public not to be swayed by perceived bias and instead focus on the facts presented in court, emphasizing that the truth should ultimately prevail.