What changed
During Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, Senator-judge Robin Padilla questioned why prosecutors treated defense witness Jaime Adalin’s China travel as relevant.
Adalin had faced contempt warnings after initially evading questions about an alleged China-sponsored trip in November 2025. He later recalled the trip.
Why it matters
The dispute is about credibility, not China itself.
Prosecutor Terry Ridon said the questions were meant to test whether Adalin was answering honestly and directly. Padilla took a different view, arguing that witnesses should be given consideration when they cannot remember travel details.
That puts the impeachment court in a familiar but consequential bind: pressing a witness can expose evasiveness, but pushing too hard on imperfect memory can make ordinary uncertainty look like deception.
Adalin’s testimony now carries an added question around how his answers were given, not just what they contained. The trial’s eventual ruling on that testimony was not reported.
Comments
No comments yet.