Who’s behind Trillanes’ trial withdrawal? He won’t say Escudero, but calls him out

SPEAKING OUT. Former senator Antonio Trillanes IV holds a press conference at Club Filipino in San Juan City on October 2, 2026, where he presented his findings on the alleged ill-gotten wealth of Vice President Sara Duterte.

Jire Carreon/Rappler

Former senator Antonio Trillanes IV doesn't explicitly disclose what he means when he says the prosecution is being pressured over his testimony, but he still can't resist taking a swipe at the trial's presiding officer

Listening to former senator Antonio Trillanes IV’s press conference is an exercise in reading between the lines.

Trillanes, fresh from his removal from the prosecution’s witness lineup in Vice President Sara Duterte’s trial, consistently faced questions from the media on the identity of the individuals who orchestrated his eventual withdrawal.

The veteran politician dodged these questions over and over, yet in the same breath repeatedly took a swipe at one person: presiding officer Chiz Escudero.

At first, Trillanes didn’t want to give reporters a juicy soundbite on the “pressure” subject.

“I would have wanted to address that, but it would be a distraction from the main issue that we want to discuss, which is more important,” Trillanes said in Filipino on Friday, October 2. When asked if the pressure was coming from the senator-judges, he quipped, “No comment.”

Relentless journalists didn’t drop the subject, prompting Trillanes to eventually take a swipe at Escudero, without explicitly naming him.

“It’s this simple: The prosecution requested that certain people be subpoenaed. My name was on the list. The subpoenas came back, and I was the only one missing. Does the impeachment court have that kind of power? Does the presiding officer have the power to say, ‘Not this one yet’? That is the question. They don’t have that power. Because this is the prosecution’s strategy,” Trillanes said.

“Let us suspend our judgment, but let’s call him out,” he added.

For the record, Escudero had suggested that the prosecution present witnesses from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) and the banks first in their unexplained wealth case against the Vice President before calling Trillanes to the witness stand.

It was a peculiar week of the trial at the Senate, though, marred by a sudden cancellation of a trial day, deferment of the presentation of the AMLC witness, and lead prosecutor Jinky Luistro’s abrupt withdrawal of Trillanes’ name from its lineup, to the surprise of even some of her colleagues in the panel, based on our candid conversations with them.

Letting go of Trillanes has its pros and cons for the prosecution and even the former senator. It’s a risky move to present a witness who has a fraught history with senator-judges, although his testimony would have been potentially explosive and highly interesting to the general public.

For Trillanes, a court appearance may have limited what he could actually say due to — as he points out — the constant objections by the defense team. He argued the objections were unnecessary and could have been stopped by Escudero himself.

“If the person presiding over that were competent, the presentation of evidence should be liberal. Because what you want is the truth. This isn’t a criminal trial where someone gets sent to jail,” Trillanes said. – Rappler.com