MANILA, Philippines — What began as a tense courtroom exchange has spilled into a wider debate over legal ethics, social media and the rules governing cross-examination in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.
Private prosecutor Amando Virgil Ligutan stood by his viral Facebook post about misleading questions on Wednesday, insisting that his message was never meant as a personal attack against any member of the defense team.
“It’s not personal. It’s about the law,” Ligutan maintained during the Senate impeachment proceedings, explaining that his background as a law teacher compelled him to speak up when he believed a basic legal principle needed clarification.
“Ang pagtuturo, ang pagtatama ng mali, ay walang pinipiling lugar at walang pinipiling panahon,” Ligutan said, adding that his “teacher’s instinct” prompted him to address what he feared could become an unchecked misconception among the public and aspiring lawyers watching the proceedings.
How the controversy started
The dispute traces back to a heated exchange during the impeachment trial involving private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan and defense lawyer Kristine Ferrer. The clash centered on objections raised during cross-examination and whether certain questions could be considered misleading.
After the exchange, Ligutan posted on social media that misleading questions are not allowed, even during cross-examination. The post quickly drew attention because it came amid the high-profile trial and was interpreted by the defense as a possible indirect criticism of Ferrer.
Defense lead counsel Sheila Sison argued that the post unfairly targeted Ferrer and clarified that Ferrer had allegedly been referring to leading questions, which are generally allowed during cross-examination, rather than misleading questions. Ligutan, however, did not mention Ferrer or any other lawyer by name in his post.
Leading vs. misleading: Why the distinction matters
At the center of the controversy is an important legal distinction.
Leading questions suggest the answer the examiner wants and are generally permitted during cross-examination. Misleading questions, on the other hand, can improperly assume facts that have not been established or present information in a way that could confuse the witness.
The prosecution has maintained that Ligutan’s post was simply a statement about a basic rule of evidence and was not intended to influence the outcome of the impeachment case or attack the defense. Prosecution spokesperson Benjamin Tolosa Jr. previously defended the post, saying it was particularly important to clarify legal principles because law students and aspiring lawyers were following the nationally watched proceedings.
A bigger issue than one Facebook post?
For Ligutan, the controversy appears to have grown beyond the original social media post. His explanation underscores how closely watched the Duterte impeachment trial has become — not only as a political battle, but also as a public lesson in courtroom procedure.
The Senate impeachment court has since moved to regulate public comments on the merits of the case, barring senator-judges and lawyers from both sides from making statements on the merits following its August 26 ruling. The restriction was described as prospective, meaning it applies to statements made after the ruling was announced.
As the trial continues, the episode serves as a reminder that even a short social media post can ignite a major controversy when it intersects with a politically charged national proceeding.
For Ligutan, though, the message remains unchanged: the issue, he says, was never about personalities — it was about correcting what he believes the law clearly says.
Leave a Reply