LAST FRIDAY Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla said Senator Robin Padilla has snubbed his office by choosing not to file a counter-affidavit to the complaint for obstruction of justice against him and Senator Allan Peter Cayetano.
The complaint arose from the escape of Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa from the Senate premises when it became known that the International Criminal Court had issued a warrant for his arrest on accusations of crimes against humanity when he was chief of the Philippine National Police.
Dela Rosa was last seen publicly in the company of Padilla. They were seen leaving the Senate premises together.
***
“One person has chosen to ignore the Ombudsman’s order. That’s Senator Robin Padilla. Maybe we will just adopt the arguments of the persons who are charged with him,” Remulla told the media in a briefing.
“He has not filed anything. He has not responded. He has not said anything about the cases, the summons given to him. The deadline has passed … He chooses to ignore the Ombudsman, then so be it. Wala siyang defense (He has no defense),” Remulla added.
Remulla said Padilla may have chosen to waive his right to submit a counter-affidavit. “I don’t know if he is being given any legal advice,” he said.
***
Yesterday Padilla denied not complying with the Ombudsman’s directive to respond to the complaint for obstruction of justice. He said he did submit a counter-affidavit?
Did he submit it within the time frame required of him? Or did he forget about it and filed his response after the public reminder from the Ombudsman?
His response, if any, will likely be admitted and considered in the course of the preliminary investigation.
***
Some kibitzers opine that the facts do not favor Padilla.
His defense has to be strictly legalistic, in the same manner that Vice President Sara Duterte is now invoking all technical objections to the pieces of evidence being presented to the impeachment court.
Simply speaking, Padilla must not volunteer facts and admissions that can steer him towards a possible indictment for obstruction of justice.
***
It is strategically better for Padilla to stick to a legalistic defense since obstruction of justice is a bailable offense. He can risk the indictment and remain outside of jail.
The question, for instance, of whether the ICC warrant of arrest is within the purview of a presidential decree that was enacted in 1981 might be simplistic but nonetheless arguably a justiciable issue of law that may brought all the way to the Supreme Court.
In the meantime, his prosecution can continue to be framed as a political issue in the context of the contentious impeachment proceedings against VP Sara.
***
Padilla can very well survive the political fallout of a minor criminal charge such as obstruction of justice.
Such does not need the sagely legal advice of Sen. Allan Peter Cayetano.
And the impeachment drama may continue to unfold, with all parties scoring political points along the way./PN
