Robin Padilla: ‘One-sided’ remark was a call for ‘fairness’

Senator Robin Padilla. INQUIRER PHOTO / NIÑO JESUS ORBETA MANILA, Philippines — Sen. Robinhood Padilla clarified that his call for prosecutors not to be “one-sided” was a call for fairness, particularly in allowing senator-judges facing cases but not convicted to participate in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial. He explained that his remark stemmed from a discussion on whether a previous conviction automatically disqualifies a witness from testifying, which he then related to the possibility of allowing senators facing cases to participate in the Duterte trial. “That was my point when I said not to be one-sided. This is not about favoring a witness or a senator-judge. What I am calling for is fairness,” Padilla said in Filipino in a statement released Wednesday night. Article continues after this advertisement During Wednesday’s proceedings, Padilla asked the prosecution whether a person convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude could still serve as a witness. Lead prosecutor and Batangas 2nd District Rep. Gerville Luistro replied that a previous conviction is not a ground for disqualifying a witness, to which Padilla replied in Filipino: “You know, your answer was very good. I hope our prosecution will not be one-sided.” Padilla’s remark drew criticism and prompted Luistro to explain in a press conference after the trial on Wednesday that the impeachment proceedings are adversarial in nature, so the prosecution is expected to establish its case while the defense is tasked with defending the respondent. Padilla then wrote in Filipino in a Facebook post on Thursday that “the prosecution’s role is not to win, but to pursue the truth and protect the innocent.” READ: Padilla to prosecutors: Your job is not to win, but to pursue the truth Article continues after this advertisement In his statement on Wednesday, Padilla cited a previous interview in which House prosecutor and Mamayang Liberal Rep. Leila de Lima discussed the possible application of the principle in Avelino v. Cuenco in determining the Senate’s “functional base” for computing the two-thirds vote required for conviction. Padilla clarified that he was not saying that the same legal rules should apply to witnesses and senator-judges, but maintained his call for “fairness.” Article continues after this advertisement “If a witness is not automatically disqualified despite having a conviction, why is the possibility being discussed that senator-judges who have cases but have not been convicted may be unable to participate and eventually be excluded from the functional base?” he said in Filipino. READ: Padilla told: Prosec’s task is push case, be shocked if we defend the VP Senators Rodante Marcoleta and Jinggoy Estrada are both detained after being separately arrested on plunder charges, while another ally, Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, remains in hiding over an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court in connection with the case alleging former President Rodrigo Duterte’s crimes against humanity. All three have so far been unable to participate in the impeachment trial against the vice president. READ: Court: Jinggoy can’t join VP impeachment trial; graft case stays Padilla, a self-proclaimed ally of the Duterte family, maintained that all available legal and procedural avenues should first be exhausted to allow senator-judges to participate before considering their exclusion from the conviction threshold. Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again. Your subscription has been successful. “If court permission is needed, then let us seek it. If the Senate needs to deliberate on it, then let us deliberate. But before discussing who should be excluded from the count, let us first exhaust all legal means to give everyone the opportunity to perform their duty,” Padilla said in Filipino. /mcm