Ridon to Padilla: Check interviews, know we didn’t attack senator-judges

Rep. Terry Ridon file photo. INQUIRER PHOTO / GRIG C. MONTEGRANDE MANILA, Philippines — If only Senator-judge Robin Padilla reviewed the interviews given by the prosecution team members, he would know that no prosecutor attacked senator-judges who have been detained, Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon said on Friday. Ridon in a statement said that while they respect senator-judges and the Senate Impeachment Court handling Vice President Sara Duterte’s trial, they take exception to Padilla’s statement that prosecutors attacked two senator-judges — Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta, who were both arrested over plunder raps. Ridon was named by Padilla as one of the two House of Representatives prosecutors who allegedly attacked Estrada and Marcoleta verbally. Padilla claimed that Ridon and Mamamayang Liberal party-list Rep. Leila de Lima said that Estrada and Marcoleta should not participate because they are detained. Article continues after this advertisement “We take exception to the following remarks made by Senator Robinhood Padilla […] With respect, had Senator-Judge Padilla reviewed the interviews and statements made in the course of the impeachment proceedings, whether in the House or the Senate, he would know that I have made no statement concerning the participation of detained Senator-Judges,” Ridon said. “This is a matter best left to the determination of the Senate Impeachment Court and the courts with jurisdiction over the detained Senator-Judges,” he added. According to Ridon, while they respect Padilla, his remarks are totally “fake news.” “His remarks are without basis. They are absolutely fake news,” Ridon said. “We have the highest respect for the Senate Impeachment Court and our Honorable Senator-Judges, including Senator-Judge Padilla.” Ridon’s statement came after Padilla appeared in an interview with Duterte-aligned Sonshine Media Network International (SMNI), asking why prosecutors are attacking senator-judges. Article continues after this advertisement “If you will listen to the exchange of words […] They claimed in their press conference that I merely said that [the prosecution] was being too one-sided. But what I said there was why is the prosecution attacking senator-judges?” Padilla, speaking Filipino, said in a clip uploaded on Facebook by DWSI 864, a radio affiliate of SMNI. “You should not be doing that because they are judges, where have you seen a prosecutor attacking a judge? They are picking on the senator-judges who are detained — Jinggoy Estrada, Senator Jingoy, and Senator Marcoleta. They attack, like Ridon who claimed that they should not participate. De Lima did that too, saying they should not participate,” he added. Article continues after this advertisement Padilla claimed that the prosecution does not have any say on how the Senate Impeachment Court will implement its rules, adding that his question on senator-judges not being allowed to participate stems from the fact that the prosecution allegedly fielded witnesses with cases. “They should not meddle in that because these are our rules, they should not interfere. That is what I was saying, you allow people with cases to be witnesses here,” Padilla said in Filipino. “But the senators with cases — which are not yet final and executory, and no hearing has been held — you do not want them to participate? What right do they have to tell us that? They seem to be flies riding a carabao. Our impeachment court should scold them and stop them from doing this,” he added. Last Wednesday, at the ninth day of Duterte’s trial, tensions briefly flared towards end as Padilla asked lead public prosecutor and Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro whether her view that witnesses with cases can testify should also apply to senator-judges facing cases. After this question, Padilla urged the prosecution to refrain from being “one-sided” — prompting reactions from lawyers serving as counsel for the prosecution. Padilla then called out the lawyers for making comments, saying that it interrupted his manifestation. READ: Luistro tells Padilla: Conviction is not a ground to disqualify witness In a press briefing after the trial on Wednesday, Luistro and counsel for the prosecution Lorna Kapunan stressed that the role of the prosecution is to prosecute Duterte, and it is the defense’s duty to prove her innocence. READ: Padilla told: Prosec’s task is push case, be shocked if we defend the VP “Well with all due respect to Senator-judge Robin Padilla, apparently this impeachment trial is adversarial — it is clearly why there is a prosecution, it is (for us) to establish the case. That’s why there is a defense panel, to defend the innocence of the respondent. So it is very much anticipated that the prosecution is biased towards presenting the case, presenting the evidence,” Luistro said. “Maybe it is surprising if the prosecution will be neutral, and even more confusing if we defend the respondent,” she added. Kapunan said that Luistro is being “very diplomatic,” suggesting that she would have given a more direct answer. Eventually, Kapunan said that it is the nature of the beast — that the prosecution prosecutes, and the defense defends. Kapunan also admitted that it was them — lawyers for the prosecution — who were scolded by Padilla for disrupting his manifestation. The private lawyer reasoned out that they, as members of the bar, cannot help but react to the statements issued by the Senator-judge. Padilla’s comments on his hope that the prosecution would not be one-sided came after questioning the prosecution over the changing affidavits of former police officer Arturo Lascañas, which was brought up by National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Melvin Matibag. Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again. Your subscription has been successful. Matibag was the third and last witness of the prosecution for Article IV of the Articles of Impeachment. Lascañas’ affidavit on Duterte being one of the many architects of the past administration’s anti-drug war was mentioned by Matibag as a basis in checking Duterte’s propensity for violence. /jpv