It is the senator-judges, and not the prosecution, who must be impartial, Lead Prosecutor and lawmaker Gerville Luistro said, following Senator-judge Robin Padilla’s rebuke.
The senator, sitting as judge for the impeachment trial against Vice President Sara Duterte, expressed dissatisfaction with the prosecution panel’s legal strategy, describing their assertions as “one-sided.”
During the post-trial House prosecution press conference, Luistro pointed out that the prosecution’s role is to prove Duterte’s culpability, while it is the defense team’s role to defend her innocence.
“With all due respect kay Senator-judge Robin Padilla, apparently this impeachment trial is adversarial. Maliwanag ‘yun. Kaya ang prosecution is to establish the case. Kaya may defense, is to defend the innocence of the respondent. So it is very much anticipated that the prosecution is biased towards presenting the evidence,” she explained, adding that it would be surprising to have a prosecution whose aim was not to assert their case, or one that would even come to the respondent’s defense.
“It is the senator-judge who must be neutral,” she said.
Private prosecutor Atty. Lorna Kapunan said the prosecution did not have any intention of disrespecting Padilla and apologized. She explained that as a litigator, her, as well as her colleagues’ reactions were “instinctive.”
However, she agreed with Luistro and redirected the remark on neutrality to him as a sitting judge at the Senate court.
In response to whether Padilla’s question as to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses was fair, Kapunan, a seasoned lawyer, said that attacking witnesses was the only option the defense—and, as it appears, the Vice President’s allies—had.
“As a general strategy, sabi ng mga lawyers, ‘If you are weak on the facts, argue on the laws, if you’re weak on the facts and the law, go against the person.’ … We’re very strong on the facts, kaya nagshi-shift sila sa law. But now that it seems there’s also weakness in the law, nagshi-shift na ang defense sa personalities,” she said.
Earlier, Padilla demanded that the prosecution avoid presenting witnesses with dubious credibility, and alleged their three witnesses were presently facing perjury complaints.
Luistro countered that their witnesses did not have any pending cases and that criminal charges does not necessarily disqualify a witness unless the judgement is final, the offense committed is punishable by more than one year, and involves moral turpitude.
