MANILA, Philippines — The Senate impeachment court has drawn a firmer line on what participants in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial may say publicly, with Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero ordering the strict enforcement of a rule barring public comments on the merits of the ongoing proceedings.
The directive covers senator-judges, prosecutors, Duterte as the respondent, their respective lawyers, and witnesses involved in the impeachment trial.
Escudero issued the order on Wednesday, August 26, after weeks of controversy over public statements and social media posts connected to the proceedings. Under Rule 18 of the Rules of Impeachment Proceedings, participants are prohibited from making public comments or disclosures concerning the merits of a pending impeachment trial.
What changed?
Escudero’s latest ruling makes clear that the court intends to enforce Rule 18 more strictly moving forward.
The presiding officer directed everyone covered by the rule to refrain not only from making public statements but also from sharing, endorsing, or amplifying statements concerning the merits of the pending case.
Lawyers participating in the trial were likewise reminded to comply with the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) governing members of the legal profession.
The court is also encouraging the parties to designate spokespersons who are not members of their active legal teams. If lawyers serving as counsels of record continue to act as spokespersons, they must still comply fully with Rule 18.
Two strikes — then a fine
The ruling also introduces a tougher penalty structure for violations.
According to News5, Escudero explained that a first violation would result in a severe reprimand and stern admonition in open court, with the warning permanently placed on the record.
A second and subsequent violation would carry a ₱30,000 fine.
Escudero also warned that records involving lawyers could be transmitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and/or the Supreme Court if disciplinary action concerning their professional licenses becomes warranted.
However, the court said it would take a more lenient approach toward earlier statements made before the new enforcement order.
For members of the impeachment court, Escudero said the court would effectively “wipe the slate clean” regarding previous public comments, signaling that the stricter enforcement is intended to apply moving forward.
The Facebook post that triggered the dispute
The controversy gained attention after prosecution counsel Amando Virgil Ligutan posted on Facebook about the use of misleading questions during cross-examination.
Ligutan wrote that the prohibition against misleading questions was a principle known by lawyers and law students, following a courtroom exchange involving defense lawyer Kristine Ferrer during the questioning of Commission on Audit witness Xylene Del Campo.
Defense lead counsel Sheila Sison objected to the post, arguing that it appeared to comment on an exchange that had taken place during the trial and could run afoul of Rule 18.
Ligutan later defended his post, saying it was not intended as a personal attack on the defense. He explained that he was speaking in his capacity as a lawyer and teacher and that his intention was to clarify a legal principle for the public and law students.
The dispute prompted Escudero to reveal that the clerk of court had been monitoring public statements by lawyers involved in the trial.
At the time, Escudero warned that some participants had repeatedly been “crossing the line” by making public comments that touched on the pending case.
The rule applies beyond the lawyers
The controversy also raised questions about whether the restriction should apply equally to everyone covered by Rule 18.
House prosecutors previously argued that the restriction should not be limited to the prosecution and defense lawyers, pointing out that the rule also covers the respondent and members of the impeachment court when their public remarks concern the merits of the trial.
GMA News likewise reported that the prosecution had asked for equal application of the sub judice restrictions, citing previous public remarks by Duterte and concerns about how the rule would be enforced.
Why the ruling matters
The development comes as Duterte’s impeachment trial enters its 19th day.
The proceedings on Wednesday continued with the defense cross-examining Lemuel Ortonio, assistant chief of staff of the Office of the Vice President, regarding the processing and use of confidential funds during the fourth quarter of 2022 through the third quarter of 2023.
Ortonio had testified that Duterte ordered him to draft the OVP’s request for confidential funds, sign disbursement vouchers, encash ₱125 million in funds per quarter, and prepare a response to a Commission on Audit observation memorandum.
The court’s decision on public statements therefore comes at a critical point in the proceedings, as both sides continue presenting and challenging testimony related to the allegations against the Vice President.
For now, the message from the impeachment court is unmistakable: participants may argue their cases inside the courtroom, but public commentary on the merits of the pending trial will face much stricter scrutiny outside it.
And with the new two-strike framework now in place, the next public statement that crosses the line could carry consequences far more serious than a warning.
Leave a Reply