MANILA — Sen. Robin Padilla on Thursday clarified that his controversial appeal against a “one-sided” prosecution in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte-Carpio was not meant to favor either camp, but to underscore the need for fairness in applying legal standards to both witnesses and senator-judges.
The clarification came after Padilla’s remark during Wednesday afternoon’s impeachment proceedings triggered varied interpretations over whether he was criticizing the House prosecution panel.
According to Padilla, his statement arose from the discussion on the legal qualifications of witnesses and the participation of senator-judges who are facing legal cases but have not been convicted.
During the proceedings, Padilla asked the House prosecution panel about the qualifications of witnesses. Prosecutors responded that a criminal conviction does not automatically disqualify a person from testifying, although it may affect a witness’ legal qualifications.
After hearing the explanation, Padilla said, “Alam niyo po, napakaganda po ng inyong sagot. Sana hindi po one-sided ang ating prosekusyon.”
Padilla explained that his remark was tied to the issue of whether senator-judges with pending cases but no final conviction should likewise be allowed to fully participate in the impeachment proceedings.
He cited statements made separately by House prosecutor and former senator Leila de Lima, who said the actual number of participating senator-judges should be considered in determining the required two-thirds vote for conviction.
De Lima pointed out that senator-judges who are under detention and unable to attend court proceedings should not automatically be included in the computation of the voting base. She also cited the Avelino vs Cuenco doctrine in discussing the “functional base” for computing the required votes.
Padilla argued that if a witness is not automatically disqualified despite a conviction, fairness should likewise be considered for senator-judges who are merely facing pending cases and have not been convicted.
He stressed that he was not equating the legal rules governing witnesses and senator-judges, acknowledging that they perform different roles and are subject to different legal standards.
Instead, he said the guiding principle should be fairness.
Padilla also clarified that he was not advocating the disregard of court orders involving detained senator-judges. Rather, he said all legal and procedural remedies should first be exhausted before excluding any senator-judge from the voting base.
“If court permission is needed, then we should ask for it. If Senate action is required, then we should pursue it,” Padilla said, adding that only after all legal avenues have been explored should the issue of excluding a senator-judge from the computation be considered.
He maintained that the participation of every qualified senator-judge could affect not only an individual vote but also the computation of the constitutionally required two-thirds vote needed to convict an impeached official.
Padilla reiterated that his “one-sided” remark was never intended to support either the prosecution or the defense, but to emphasize that fairness must prevail throughout the impeachment proceedings./PN
