Robin Padilla questions prosecution over China trip inquiry in Sara Duterte impeachment trial

Floyd Brenz., Philippine Canadian Inquirer
November 12, 2026

Photo Courtesy: Senate of the Philippines

Senator-judge Robin Padilla questioned the House prosecution panel on Thursday over its line of questioning about a defense witness’s trips to China during Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial.

During the 43rd day of proceedings, Padilla asked House prosecutor and Bicol Saro Party-list Representative Terry Ridon whether simply visiting China had become an issue in the case.

Padilla shared that he had also traveled to China twice, including one trip with former President Rodrigo Duterte, but said he could no longer recall the places they visited. He added that he even had to ask his staff to help him remember the destinations.

Ridon clarified that the prosecution was not questioning the witness’s decision to travel to China. Instead, he said the questions were intended to examine the credibility of Davao City Assessor Jaime Adalin, the defense’s first witness.

The prosecutor pointed out that Adalin only confirmed certain details of his trip after senator-judges supplied information, including his arrival in Beijing and departure from Shanghai.

Ridon maintained that the concern was the witness’s responses during questioning, which the prosecution considered less than straightforward.

Padilla, however, cited the reminder of Senate President Francis Escudero, who presides over the impeachment court, that senator-judges should exercise patience and respect witnesses who say they cannot remember certain details.

Escudero had earlier reminded the court to exercise utmost restraint in using its contempt powers, stressing that unsatisfactory answers do not automatically constitute grounds for contempt.

Adalin’s China trips became a point of discussion after prosecutors questioned his account of a 2026 visit, including its duration, itinerary, and who paid for the expenses. The witness eventually said the trip was personal and that he shouldered the costs.

The prosecution is examining the circumstances surrounding the trips as part of its effort to challenge the credibility of defense witnesses in connection with Article II of the impeachment complaint, which involves allegations of unexplained wealth and undeclared properties against Duterte.