A private prosecutor in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte said the obligation to remain impartial rests with the senator-judges, pushing back on a senator’s call for the House panel to avoid being “one-sided.”
Amando Virgil Ligutan drew a line between the roles of the parties and the role of the impeachment court itself, saying advocacy is expected from both the prosecution and the defense while those hearing the case must stay in the middle. “Trabaho ng prosecution to be one-sided, [that is] to prosecute. Trabaho naman ng depensa to be one-sided, that is to defend their client. Pero ‘yong mga judges… sila dapat ‘yong neutral. Hindi sila dapat one-sided,” he said.
The remarks follow an exchange on the ninth day of the trial, when Senator-judge Robin Padilla told the House panel, “Sana hindi one-sided ang ating prosekusyon.” Padilla made the appeal while questioning the credibility of prosecution witnesses, including National Bureau of Investigation officials, and the comment prompted Presiding Officer Francis Escudero to call for order after it drew reactions inside the session hall. Rappler reported that the remark caused visible murmurs among the House prosecutors, with Senate staff raising “Silence Please” signs before Escudero intervened.
Lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro made the same argument in a post-trial briefing, saying an impeachment trial is by design adversarial. “If ever mayroon ditong dapat maging neutral, dapat hindi one-sided, eh let us remind our countrymen, ‘yun po ‘yung mga senator-judges na dapat nasa gitna lang sila,” she told DZMM, adding that the senators’ mandate is political neutrality regardless of party affiliation.
Private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan echoed the position, telling reporters that both sides are expected to argue their own case and that neutrality is not the prosecution’s function. Kapunan also apologized to Padilla for the reaction from the front row, saying there had been no intent to disrespect him.
Padilla, for his part, said on Thursday that his remark was a call for fairness and due process rather than an attempt to favor any party, explaining that he raised it in the context of senator-judges facing legal cases without convictions.
