Senators clashed on Monday, July 20, over whether the impeachment court should entertain statements unrelated to Vice President Sara Duterte's trial, after Senator-judge Robin Padilla used the proceedings to deny allegations that he had ignored an Office of the Ombudsman order in a separate case.

At the opening of the seventh day of the impeachment trial, Padilla apologized for raising a personal matter but said he needed to correct reports that he had failed to comply with the Ombudsman's directive to file a counter-affidavit over a complaint linked to his alleged assistance in Senator Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa's supposed "escape."

Holding up what he said was the original copy of his filing, Padilla insisted he had complied with the Ombudsman's order and criticized media reports suggesting otherwise. He maintained that while he would not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, he respected the Office of the Ombudsman and had submitted the required document.

Senator Erwin Tulfo questioned whether the impeachment court was the proper venue for senators to explain personal legal issues.

"Every minute, every hour that we waste away from the defense or from the prosecution of the case of the Vice President, it is injustice to the Vice President," Tulfo said, adding that the trial should proceed as quickly as possible so the court could either acquit or convict Duterte based on the evidence.

Tulfo said the impeachment court was constituted solely to hear the case against the Vice President and should focus only on evidence, testimony and arguments directly related to the impeachment complaint. He argued that time spent defending senator-judges from unrelated allegations delayed the proceedings and was unfair to Duterte and her family, urging colleagues to address personal matters through press conferences, social media or regular Senate sessions instead.

He also appealed to Presiding Officer Francis "Chiz" Escudero to strictly enforce the court's rules and disallow discussions unrelated to the impeachment case.

Senate Minority Leader Alan Peter Cayetano immediately pushed back, saying the integrity of the impeachment court and its members was always relevant to the proceedings. He argued that attacks or accusations against senator-judges could not be separated from the impeachment trial, as they affected the credibility of the tribunal itself.

Cayetano also criticized Tulfo's description of the court's role, saying senator-judges were not tasked with either clearing or prosecuting the Vice President. Instead, he said, their constitutional duty was to hear the evidence and ultimately decide whether to acquit or convict, while prosecution and defense were responsible for presenting their respective cases.

"The integrity of the court and the justices or judges is always relevant," he said.

Senator-judge Vicente Sotto III sought to end the exchange by moving that the manifestations be referred to the Senate, sitting as a legislative body, rather than to the impeachment court.

Senator Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan supported the motion, citing the impeachment trial of former President Joseph Estrada, in which a similar manifestation by the late Senator Rene Cayetano was allowed to remain on the record but was eventually referred to the Senate.

Escudero adopted the same approach, ruling that Padilla's manifestation would remain part of the impeachment court's records but that the matter should be referred to the Senate as a legislative body.

He acknowledged the concern about discussing collateral issues during the trial. Still, he noted that the Senate was currently in recess, leaving the impeachment court as the only occasion for senators to gather.

"I ask the indulgence of the parties to this case," Escudero said.

He expressed hope that once Congress resumed session after the President's State of the Nation Address (SONA), senators would have the proper forum to raise grievances and seek inquiries into allegations against them in their capacity as legislators rather than as senator-judges.