MANILA, Philippines — As the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte grows increasingly combative, lawyer Antonio “Audie” Bucoy is urging both the prosecution and defense to draw a clear line between aggressive legal argument and personal attacks.
Bucoy, a member of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) and former spokesperson of the House prosecution panel, said insults, mockery and personal attacks have no place in an impeachment proceeding—or in any court.
His remarks came amid heated exchanges between lawyers on opposing sides of the Senate impeachment court, where questions over courtroom conduct and public statements have increasingly become part of the proceedings.
According to Bucoy, lawyers are bound by professional conduct rules enforced by the Supreme Court. At the same time, he acknowledged that impeachment proceedings are unusual in character and that both sides should have enough latitude to explain their positions.
The boundary, he said, is mockery and disrespect toward fellow lawyers.
Bucoy also pointed to another restriction that matters in the ongoing trial: prosecution and defense lawyers are not supposed to use their arguments to comment on the merits of the case in a way that effectively turns courtroom advocacy into an exchange of accusations about whose evidence is stronger.
The issue surfaced after a dispute involving defense lawyer Kristine Ferrer and private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan over misleading questions during cross-examination. Duterte’s lead counsel Sheila Sison subsequently criticized a social-media post by private prosecutor Armando Ligutan, describing it as inappropriate and in bad taste toward another member of the Bar.
The House prosecution, however, disputed the defense’s characterization of the incident and argued that the transcript and courtroom exchange did not support the complaint.
THE BIGGER ISSUE: WHO SHOULD POLICE THE TRIAL?
Bucoy’s comments also extended beyond the lawyers.
He questioned the conduct of some senator-judges whose questions, in his view, went beyond simply clarifying testimony and appeared to challenge or undermine the prosecution’s evidence.
His position was that senator-judges may ask questions when testimony is unclear, but that defending or attacking the evidence should remain the responsibility of the parties themselves.
That issue places additional attention on Senate President and impeachment court presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero, who has been expected to address questions surrounding the public statements and courtroom conduct of the lawyers involved. The Senate’s own news service reported on Aug. 17 that Escudero was set to rule on counsels’ public statements concerning the case.
THEN CAME THE ₱125-MILLION QUESTION
The controversy over courtroom conduct is unfolding against an even more consequential backdrop.
On Aug. 17, former Office of the Vice President special disbursing officer Gina Acosta testified that Duterte personally instructed her to release ₱125 million in confidential funds to then-Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group chief Col. Raymund Dante Lachica in December 2022.
Acosta testified that she encashed the ₱125-million check at LandBank’s Shaw Boulevard branch on Dec. 20, 2022, and turned over the entire amount to Lachica that same day.
Inquirer separately reported that Acosta confirmed the money was carried in four oblong-shaped traveling bags, adding another striking detail to testimony surrounding the controversial confidential-fund releases.
The testimony is significant because the impeachment prosecution is examining the alleged misuse of confidential funds, among other accusations contained in the Articles of Impeachment.
The prosecution has previously focused on allegations that the Office of the Vice President rapidly withdrew and disbursed large amounts of confidential funds without adequate liquidation. Earlier proceedings examined four ₱125-million withdrawals, totaling ₱500 million.
WHY BUCoy’s WARNING MATTERS
Bucoy’s intervention may appear procedural, but it comes at a politically explosive moment.
The Duterte impeachment trial has moved far beyond the initial legal arguments and into witness testimony, financial records and competing interpretations of how confidential funds were handled.
That makes courtroom discipline increasingly important.
For the prosecution, the challenge is to establish its allegations through admissible evidence rather than political rhetoric.
For the defense, the challenge is to attack weaknesses in the prosecution’s case without allowing courtroom disputes to become distractions from the testimony itself.
And for the senator-judges, the central responsibility remains deciding the case based on the proceedings and evidence presented before the impeachment court.
The Senate impeachment court began hearing Duterte’s case on July 6, 2026. The proceedings remain ongoing, with the trial now deeply focused on allegations concerning confidential funds and other articles of impeachment.
Bucoy’s warning therefore lands at a critical point: the louder the political battle becomes, the more important it is for the impeachment court to keep the spotlight on evidence rather than insults.
And with testimony now directly linking Duterte to the release of ₱125 million to her former security chief, the next phase of the trial could prove far more consequential than the courtroom clashes that first drew attention.
The question is no longer simply who crossed the line during the arguments. It is what the evidence will ultimately show—and whether that evidence will be enough to determine Duterte’s political fate.
Leave a Reply