MANILA, Philippines — House impeachment prosecution adviser and spokesperson Robert Ace Barbers said prosecutors Terry Ridon and Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr. were apparently trying to explain the ongoing impeachment proceedings to the public when they made the statements that prompted the Senate Impeachment Court to issue show-cause orders.
The two prosecutors were ordered to explain statements that the impeachment court considered potentially covered by its stricter enforcement of the sub judice rule, which bars parties involved in the case from publicly discussing the merits of a pending impeachment proceeding outside the courtroom.
Barbers, however, said Friday that he viewed Ridon and Tolosa’s comments as an attempt to make the complicated proceedings more understandable and relatable to Filipinos—not as an effort to influence the senator-judges.
“Perhaps there were some expressions in the desire to make the issue understandable and relatable to the Filipino people, e baka may sumobra,” Barbers said, according to a report by Journal News Online.
He added that, in his view, the statements were expressions of the prosecutors’ understanding of the proceedings and an attempt to explain them to the public.
Senate court demands explanation
The Senate Impeachment Court issued the show-cause orders on September 16, with Ridon confirming the following day that he was among those directed to respond.
The orders followed several incidents involving public statements about the impeachment trial. Impeachment court spokesperson Regie Tongol said the incidents occurred on September 8, 14 and 15, with the respondents given 24 hours to submit their explanations.
GMA News reported that Ridon and Tolosa subsequently maintained that their public comments concerned the procedure and publicly available information surrounding the proceedings rather than the merits of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment case.
Ridon said his public statements were made while carrying out his responsibilities as a member of the House prosecution panel and in keeping with the prosecution team’s commitment to inform the public about the status and progress of the proceedings.
What exactly is the sub judice rule?
The controversy stems from the Senate Impeachment Court’s decision to enforce the sub judice rule more strictly.
Presiding Officer and Senator-Judge Francis “Chiz” Escudero earlier warned parties involved in the trial against discussing the merits of the case through media interviews or social media.
Under the court’s framework, a first violation may result in a public reprimand and stern admonition. Subsequent violations may carry a fine of up to P30,000 per incident, with possible restrictions on a lawyer’s participation in courtroom proceedings.
Escudero also encouraged both the prosecution and defense to designate spokespersons who are not directly participating in the trial, making it easier for the teams to communicate procedural developments without running afoul of the rule.
Prosecution says public explanation remains important
The issue is particularly significant because the prosecution has previously emphasized the need to explain the lengthy impeachment proceedings to the public.
Ridon earlier said that the prosecution would continue presenting evidence while explaining the trial’s procedures, witnesses and sequencing to Filipinos, provided that its public statements remain within the limits of the court’s sub judice ruling.
Tolosa, meanwhile, was formally designated as the House prosecution team’s legal spokesperson and later joined the private prosecution team. The House said his role includes communicating developments in the proceedings while actively participating in the trial.
The tension between courtroom participation and public communication has therefore become a recurring issue as the impeachment trial continues.
Barbers calls for equal application of the rule
While defending Ridon and Tolosa’s intent, Barbers also argued that the sub judice rule should apply consistently to all parties involved in the impeachment proceedings.
He said the restriction should cover not only prosecutors but also defense lawyers, senator-judges and the respondent.
The position was echoed by Manila Rep. Bienvenido “Benny” Abante Jr., who questioned whether statements from prosecutors could realistically influence senator-judges who are required to decide the case based on the proceedings and evidence before them.
Philstar likewise reported that the House prosecution team has urged the impeachment court to apply the rule universally, including to Duterte, after the court ordered Ridon and Tolosa to explain their statements.
What happens next?
Ridon has submitted his response to the show-cause order, while Tolosa has also submitted his explanation. Reports said the impeachment court is expected to determine whether their explanations sufficiently address the alleged violations.
For now, the dispute adds another layer to an already closely watched impeachment trial: how can prosecutors keep the public informed while avoiding statements that could be interpreted as discussing the merits of a case still before the Senate Impeachment Court?
That question is likely to remain important as the proceedings continue and the court determines how strictly its sub judice rules will be applied to everyone involved.
