Symbol or a slip? When Marcos, Padilla, Villar went robe-less at impeach trial kickoff

June 12, 2025 - 11:29 AM
1781
Robe-less senators at impeachment
Defiant or just an logistical oversight? Sens. Robin Padilla, Cynthia Villar and Imee Marcos—publicly allies of Vice President Sara Duterte—do not don Oxford red robes even as their colleagues did at the Senate session on Tuesday, June 10, 2025. (The STAR/Jesse Bustos)

Three senators stood out as senators convened to open Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial toward the end of the Senate session on Tuesday, June 10—not for their arguments, but for what they did not wear.

While most of their colleagues donned Oxford crimson robes as they took their oaths as senator-judges on June 10, Sens. Cynthia Villar, Robin Padilla and Imee Marcos were in civilian attire.

Two of them—Padilla and Marcos—wore green, the trademark campaign color of the vice president they are publicly allied with.

Their reasons? While news publication The Daily Tribune reported that they were defiant, Villar said she was unable to get her robe fitted. Padilla said “hindi kasya.” And Marcos said she simply did not have one, the Philippine STAR reported.

But on social media, their absence in official judicial garb raised eyebrows—and questions.

“Just curious lang,” one user posted. “Bakit kaya hindi naka-robe sina Senators Robin, Cynthia and Imee? 🤔🙄” The tweet garnered more than a thousand views.

Another user speculated, “’Di ba hindi nanumpa Cynthia, Imee at Robin as senator-judge, so dapat hindi sila kasama sa boboto so dapat 15-5-3. Just an observation. Hay naku.” The user was questioning whether the three should have been allowed to vote on procedural matters without donning robes or taking the judge’s oath.

The senators’ actual voting tally—18-5-0—in favor of the motion to return the articles of impeachment to the House of Representatives right before the session ended included the three robe-less senators.

What the robes are for

The robe is part of the Senate’s formal impeachment court attire, signifying the gravity and impartiality expected in such proceedings.

While not wearing one may not violate any standing rule, the visual break—especially in a trial involving a top ally—was not lost on the public.

Shortly after the oath-taking, the Senate voted 18-5 to return the impeachment complaint back to the House of Representatives. Critics called the move an attempt to delay or derail the trial, though the chamber said it was merely seeking constitutional clarity on whether the complaint followed the one-year impeachment rule.

The House has since stood by its process and asked the Senate to explain its decision.

Whether or not the missing robes were innocent wardrobe issues or a quiet statement, they added a symbolic wrinkle to an already unprecedented moment in Philippine political history.