MANILA, Philippines — The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte is heading into another potential showdown as her defense team challenged House prosecutors to bring their accusations over alleged sub judice violations directly before the Senate impeachment court—not through the media.
The defense’s position comes as both sides trade accusations over what can and cannot be said publicly while Duterte’s impeachment trial remains ongoing.
Defense deputy spokesman Justin Gular said the proper venue for determining whether Duterte, the prosecution or the defense crossed the line is the impeachment court itself.
“As to the statements made by the Vice President outside the court, we think the proper forum to raise that is not by going to the media or going to the public but raising this matter in the impeachment court,” Gular said in an interview with ANC, according to The Philippine Star.
Defense demands equal application of the rule
At the heart of the dispute is the sub judice rule, which restricts parties in an ongoing proceeding from publicly discussing matters that could interfere with or influence the case.
Gular argued that the rule must be applied uniformly to everyone involved in the impeachment proceedings.
That means the same standard imposed on Duterte should also apply to the House prosecution, defense lawyers and other parties covered by the impeachment rules.
“The standard that should be imposed upon the Vice President should also be imposed upon the prosecution,” Gular said.
The defense has also called for clearer guidance from the impeachment court, arguing that the boundaries of the sub judice rule have become blurred.
Under the defense’s reading of the rules, parties, senator-judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers are prohibited from discussing the merits of the case outside the impeachment proceedings.
Prosecution: Rule must apply to everyone, too
The prosecution has also argued that the sub judice rule should be applied equally—including to Duterte and the senator-judges.
ABS-CBN News reported that House prosecutors maintained that the rule should cover all parties in the impeachment proceedings, reinforcing the argument that public comments must remain within the limits established by the Senate impeachment court.
The dispute intensified after Duterte criticized the proceedings, including remarks that the law was being “bent.”
House prosecutors argued that such comments could undermine the impeachment process and called for the court to address them. GMA News reported that prosecution spokesperson Renee Co said the court should reprimand Duterte over her public criticism of the proceedings.
Another flashpoint: ‘misleading questions’
The sub judice dispute also unfolded alongside a separate confrontation involving questions during cross-examination.
During the trial, private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan and defense lawyer Kristine Ferrer clashed over whether misleading questions were permissible during cross-examination. GMA News reported that Ferrer said they were allowed, after which private prosecutor Armando Ligutan posted a comment on social media about the legal principle involved.
Duterte’s lead defense counsel Sheila Sison objected to Ligutan’s post, arguing that it breached the standards expected during an ongoing impeachment proceeding.
House prosecutor Chel Diokno, however, maintained that parties could discuss aspects of the case publicly as long as they stayed within the limits imposed by law and the proceedings.
The episode underscored the larger problem facing the impeachment court: where does legitimate public commentary end and an improper discussion of the pending case begin?
Escudero set to clarify the rules
Senate impeachment court presiding officer Francis Escudero has indicated that he would issue a ruling on the sub judice controversy, while hinting that certain members of both the prosecution and defense may have violated the rule.
Gular said Duterte’s lawyers have a responsibility to remind their client about the restrictions governing public statements.
He also said the defense would respect whatever ruling the impeachment court issues and comply with any requirements moving forward.
That ruling could become significant because the controversy is no longer simply about one statement by Duterte. It has evolved into a broader fight over how the impeachment court will police public commentary by everyone involved in the trial.
Why Monday’s ruling matters
The coming ruling could provide the clearest indication yet of how strictly the Senate impeachment court intends to enforce its sub judice rules.
The defense wants a standard that applies equally to all sides. The prosecution, meanwhile, has insisted that the restrictions must cover Duterte, her lawyers, prosecutors and even senator-judges where applicable.
That makes the next move particularly consequential.
If the court draws a sharper line around what participants can say outside the Senate chamber, both camps could face tighter restrictions on public commentary for the remainder of the trial.
For Duterte’s defense, the issue is also about fairness: if the Vice President is expected to follow the sub judice rule, the prosecution should be held to the same standard.
And for the prosecution, the argument is that the rule exists precisely because an impeachment trial is still underway and public statements about the case can affect perceptions while the senator-judges are yet to decide.
The fight, therefore, is no longer just over what Sara Duterte said.
It is increasingly about who gets to speak, what they can say—and who gets called out when the line is crossed.
The Senate impeachment court’s ruling could determine that boundary for everyone involved.
Leave a Reply