Padilla always brings color in Senate impeachment hearings: Kapunan — DZMM (22 July 2026)

[0:00] And then regarding naman po specifically yung comment ni Sen. Padilla na sana daw hindi one-sided yung prosecution daw po, ano po yung reaction doon since parang umingay po sa loob ng session hall when that was said? [0:14] Well, with all due respect kay Sen. Judge Robin Padilla, no? Apparently, this impeachment trial is adversarial. Maliwanag yun. Kaya merong prosecution is to establish the case. [0:31] Kaya may defense is to defend the innocence of the respondent, no? So, it is very much anticipated that the prosecution is biased towards presenting the case, presenting the evidence, no? Siguro mas nakakapagtaka pag naging neutral ang prosecution. At lalong nakakapagtaka kung ididefend namin yung respondent, no? [1:02] So, I think Kong Jinki is very diplomatic in her answer. [1:17] Kasi ako magino pero medyo basta style. [1:20] But I've always deferred, I've always said that sometimes the Senate impeachment hearings are in black and white. And we're very appreciative that Sen. Robin always brings color and surprise and excitement. [1:41] It's as if, especially if it's the last one to manifest, eh, nagigising po kaming lahat. Kanina talaga nagigising kaming lahat. At pinagalitan pa kami sa front row. [1:53] So, may I use this opportunity to apologize to Senator Judge Robin. There was no intent to disrespect him, no? [2:03] Kaya lang. Kaya lang, siyempre pag-lawyer ka at nasa litigation ka, i-emote ka, mag-i-emote ka, no? Alam naman nila yung, hindi naman emote na drama, pero it is an instinctive reaction. [2:19] There was really no intent to disrespect him when he said, lalong-lalo na yung mga nasa front row, nagtinginan kami ganyan. Yun pala kami yun, nasa front row. [2:29] So, Senator Robin, sabi mo, kaibigan tayo, forgive na lang. Hindi na kami uulit dyan. Pero, the prosecution really is for the prosecution. And the defense is for the defense. [2:47] Hidagd... [2:47] Hindi ba? Ganon. As we say, it is the nature of the beast. [2:51] The senator judge must be the one who is neutral. Yung siguro sinasabing, dapat neutral, that applies to senator judges. [3:03] Ang quote diyan, talbog rin sa inyo. Talbog sa inyo. A reminder. [3:10] Oh, ha. I mean, if you're saying that to us, we're saying it back to you, no? [3:16] It goes back to you, the issue of bias also. [3:21] Talbog is bounced. [3:23] It bounced. I'm bouncing. We're bouncing back the question, no? [3:27] Back to you. That's... [3:29] Tell me about it, it's talbog. [3:31] Correct. It's talbog, no? So... [3:34] Ibalik lang natin doon sa tamang konteksto, no? [3:37] Of course, with due courtesy to Senator Robin, niririspeto naman natin yung kanyang pananaw [3:42] na parang one-sided, no? Ang prosecution. Pero ibalik natin. [3:48] Ang Kongreso, ang siyang tumanggap ng impeachment complaint, sangayon sa konstitusyon. [3:54] Tinignan kung may complaint ba, e kumpleto sa forma at may basihan. [3:58] At nakita at sinangayunan ng 257 congressman na isumiti yung articles of impeachment. [4:04] Ibig sabihin, ang Kongreso na ngayon, ang prosecutor o yung magri-representan ng mga nagreklamo [4:11] at sangayon doon sa mga nakitang pwede, may probable cause. [4:16] Ngayon ay naiakyat iyan sa korte na ang Senado in this case. [4:21] Dito naman sa korte, e talagang bubuksan mo na ang lahat ng prueba na ipapakita ng prosecution [4:27] para i-confirm or sangayunan or tuldukan yung mga reklamo at patotohanan yung mga reklamo. [4:36] Yung defense naman ay yung akusado kung saan, in its word itself, defense de-depensa. [4:43] Yan po ang sitwasyon. [4:45] Ang neutral ay ang Sen. Judges kasi kailangan nilang pakinggan, i-analyze, pag-aralan, pagdibatihan [4:53] ang lahat na related sa kaso para mag-desisyon. [4:58] Hindi pwede maging biased ang Sen. Judges pero ang defense talagang ididepensahan nila ang akusado. [5:04] Ang prosecutor naman ay siya ang magtutulak para i-prove na meron silang tamang kaso. [5:12] Yan po ang sitwasyon. [5:13] Siguro, baka nasobrahan ng galing ng ating mga prosecutors, kakibat ang ating private volunteer prosecutors. [5:25] Kasi syempre, nakita siguro ng ating isang Sen. Judge, hindi lang siguro isa, [5:31] baka nakita ng karamihan na talagang solid ang ebidensya, [5:36] hindi pwedeng malihis, hindi pwedeng mahinto, kailangan ipagpatuloy at kailangang tuldukan. [5:42] Kaya nire-respeto namin si Sen. Robin Padilla. [5:45] Pero ibalik natin, ano ba ang nararapat, ano ang dapat at saan ito patungo? [5:51] Follow-up question lang po, attorney. [5:53] Ano po ba yung instinctive reaction that Sen. Robin reacted to? [5:59] Ano po yung nangyayari sa front row? [6:01] Hindi ko na maalala kasi, kasi, wag na lang kasi kami sa front row. [6:13] Kasi alam namin, nakikita kami sa camera na trying to behave kami. [6:18] Trying to behave. [6:19] Kaya lang, eh, minsan mahirap mag-behave. [6:22] Kasi yung, you react, you react as a lawyer, you react. [6:26] Kasi yung years of experience namin. [6:29] Parang sa korte yan, di ba nanonood naman kayo ng mga court scenes, no? [6:33] Di ba? [6:34] Yung mga ibang lawyers pa nga, nagpa-pound on the table. [6:38] Objection, Your Honor. [6:39] Yung mga ganyan. [6:40] Kanya, nakaganya na lang ako, nagdadasaw na lang ako para hindi ako mag-react. [6:45] But, you know, it is not out of disrespect. [6:48] It is because for years of training, where we instinctively react to what we think is wrong [6:54] or to what we think is unfair. [6:57] As I've said before, we cannot, unlike, if it were the defense, for instance, we're prosecution, [7:06] if it were the defense who made a statement or who made an unfair allegation, we can contest it. [7:14] Kaya lang pag senator judge, siyempre hindi pwede. [7:17] So, and that is why sometimes a reaction is more visual than vocal. [7:25] Sorry po. [7:28] Very brief follow-up din, since related naman po ito doon. [7:32] I'd like to address this question po to attorney Lorna Capunan. [7:35] Kasi you've been in the legal practice po, no? [7:39] For almost five decades. [7:41] Since you're a veteran litigator po, [7:44] So, sa inyong personal na pananaw, [7:46] was Senator Robin Padilla's questioning of Representative Luis Roca nina was a fair question? [7:53] Kasi at one point may sinabi pa po siya na wala kang karapatang magtanong. [7:57] Patas po ba yun? Balanse po ba yun para sa isang normal na court procedure? [8:05] Alam mo, the problem with us lawyers na. [8:10] Yes. [8:10] I didn't know exactly whether he was asking a question or he was manifesting. [8:20] Kasi at one point, he was talking about the witnesses, our witnesses. [8:25] And then suddenly, he was talking about the senators who have pending cases. [8:31] That's why I tried to seek for clarification. [8:37] Patas po ba yun, attorney Capunan? [8:41] Let me just say this, as a general strategy. [8:45] Alam nyo, sabi namin sa nang mga lawyers, [8:53] If you are weak on the facts, argue on the laws. [8:59] If you're weak on the facts and the law, go against the person. [9:06] So, ang nangyayari po ngayon, sana, [9:10] if there is a perception that we're very strong on the facts, [9:15] that's why nagshishift sila sa law. [9:20] But now that it seems that there's also weakness in the law, [9:25] nagshishift na ang defense sa personalities. [9:30] Attacking the credibility of our witnesses, [9:34] attacking some persons who are not even our witnesses, [9:38] like, to say that they committed crime, [9:42] or they're not worthy to be, they're not credible. [9:47] Merong ngang inatake na cited for perjury, [9:52] na hindi naman namin witness. [9:54] And when that failed, there was an attack on our earlier two witnesses, [9:59] saying that maniniwala ba kayo sa, [10:07] even the two earlier witnesses, [10:09] who were credible and competent, [10:12] the attack now was on their, [10:14] may conviction, or may caso, and all that, [10:19] which is why we very welcome the statement of Kong Jinki, [10:24] when she says, [10:25] they have been vetted, [10:27] and there are no pending cases or convictions against them. [10:29] And, uh, citing the law also, [10:34] uh, Chair Jinki did say that [10:36] a pending case will not, [10:39] if not, if there is no crime, [10:42] conviction for a crime of moral turpitude, [10:45] it will not affect your credibility as a witness.