Ridon Says Panelo Should ‘Take a Break’ After Panelo Criticizes Kapunan

MANILA, Philippines — Bicol Saro party-list Rep. and House prosecutor Terry Ridon fired back at former presidential legal counsel Salvador Panelo after the latter criticized private prosecutor Atty. Lorna Kapunan’s performance during Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial.

The exchange followed the August 12 proceedings, during which prosecution and defense lawyers disagreed over the proper scope and form of cross-examination.

Panelo reportedly said Kapunan should already “magpahinga,” or take a break, after the veteran lawyer became involved in a tense discussion concerning misleading questions and whether a witness could be directed to provide only “yes” or “no” answers.

Ridon rejected Panelo’s criticism and turned the remark back on him.

“Actually, si Atty. Panelo ’yong dapat magpahinga. Hindi ko nga alam kung ba’t siya nandito araw-araw,” Ridon said during a prosecution press conference.

His statement translates to: “Actually, Atty. Panelo is the one who should take a break. I do not even know why he is here every day.”

Ridon Challenges Panelo’s Position

Ridon also questioned whether Panelo should be treated as a credible commentator on the trial, pointing to the former Palace official’s previous objections to the impeachment proceedings.

“More importantly, in the first weeks of the trial, hindi ba parang he was basically questioning the trial itself. So would we actually listen to him today na dapat magpahinga si Atty. Kapunan?” Ridon said.

“Ang dapat magpahinga, si Atty. Panelo,” he added.

Ridon’s response was a defense of Kapunan and the House prosecution team. It did not constitute a formal action or ruling by the Senate impeachment court.

Panelo is not part of the Senate tribunal that will determine the case. His statements concerning Kapunan’s performance represent his personal legal and political commentary on the proceedings.

Similarly, Ridon’s response reflects the position of a House prosecutor advocating for the prosecution.

What Happened During the August 12 Hearing?

The controversy developed after lawyers engaged in a heated discussion over how questions should be presented during cross-examination.

One issue was whether a witness could be required to respond strictly with “yes” or “no,” even when the witness believed that an explanation was necessary.

Another issue involved the difference between a leading question and a misleading question.

Under Rule 132 of the Philippine Rules on Evidence, a leading question suggests the answer desired by the lawyer asking it. Leading questions are generally permitted during cross-examination.

A misleading question, however, assumes as true a fact that the witness has not established or contradicts what the witness previously stated. Misleading questions are not allowed.

A question seeking a “yes” or “no” answer is therefore not automatically misleading. Whether it is improper depends on its exact wording, the testimony already given and the context in which it is asked.

The presiding officer and the senator-judges—not commentators outside the proceedings—have the authority to rule on objections and determine how questioning should proceed in the impeachment court.

Why the Exchange Matters

Cross-examination allows lawyers to test the accuracy, consistency and credibility of a witness’s testimony. Lawyers frequently use short or leading questions to maintain control of the examination and obtain clear answers.

Witnesses, however, may sometimes argue that a simple affirmative or negative response would be incomplete or could create an inaccurate impression.

The disagreement therefore concerns more than courtroom style. It involves balancing a lawyer’s right to conduct a meaningful cross-examination with the need to ensure that testimony is not distorted or taken out of context.

The Senate impeachment court has considerable authority to manage its proceedings, resolve objections and determine what evidence and testimony it will consider.

Personal Remarks Add to Political Tension

The “magpahinga” exchange between Panelo and Ridon does not resolve the underlying legal disagreement. Instead, it shows how the highly publicized trial has generated disputes outside the Senate chamber as political figures, lawyers and government officials offer competing interpretations of each hearing.

Panelo served as chief presidential legal counsel and spokesperson during the administration of former President Rodrigo Duterte, the Vice President’s father.

Ridon, meanwhile, is a member of the House prosecution panel tasked with presenting the impeachment case against Vice President Duterte.

Their opposing positions provide important context for their statements, but neither side’s criticism should be treated as evidence concerning the impeachment allegations themselves.

Vice President Duterte has denied the accusations against her. The prosecution bears the responsibility of presenting evidence supporting the articles of impeachment, while the defense has the right to challenge the evidence and present its case.

Ultimately, the senator-judges must decide the case based on the admissible evidence and arguments formally presented before the impeachment court—not on personal exchanges made during press conferences or media interviews.

This article was updated on August 14, 2026. The statements attributed to Ridon and Panelo represent their respective opinions and do not constitute findings by the Senate impeachment court.