The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte is entering another contentious phase, with House prosecutors warning that her public attacks on the proceedings could be more damaging to the integrity of the Senate impeachment court than the ongoing dispute over the sub judice rule.
The prosecution’s latest criticism centers on Duterte’s public characterization of the impeachment proceedings as an exercise in “bending the law.” Prosecutors argued that statements questioning the credibility or impartiality of the tribunal could influence public perception of the case while the trial remains ongoing.
The warning comes as both sides continue to clash over how freely lawyers and the Vice President may discuss an active impeachment case outside the Senate chamber.
Prosecutors shift focus from sub judice to court integrity
House prosecution members have maintained that the sub judice rule should apply equally to everyone involved in the trial—including Duterte, her defense lawyers, prosecutors and senator-judges.
ABS-CBN reported that prosecutors insisted the rule should not be selectively enforced and that all parties should observe the restrictions imposed by the impeachment court.
But prosecutors have also drawn a distinction between ordinary public commentary and statements that could undermine confidence in the tribunal itself.
That concern intensified after Duterte questioned the conduct of the proceedings and suggested that the law was being bent. Prosecutors said such remarks could go beyond a simple defense of her position and potentially cast doubt on the legitimacy of the impeachment process.
Rep. Renee Co, a spokesperson for the House prosecution panel, argued that if the impeachment court were to reprimand someone over conduct surrounding the trial, Duterte herself should face scrutiny over her public statements.
The defense, however, has pushed back against efforts to characterize public comments as violations before the impeachment court itself makes a ruling.
The sub judice fight is far from over
The dispute over sub judice has become one of the trial’s most closely watched procedural battles.
The rule generally seeks to prevent parties from making public statements that could improperly influence an ongoing judicial proceeding. In the impeachment trial, however, its application has generated debate over where legitimate public explanation ends and prohibited commentary begins.
Senate impeachment court spokesperson Reginald Tongol previously explained that the court—not merely its presiding officer—would determine whether a statement violated the trial rules if the issue were formally raised before the tribunal.
The prosecution has therefore argued that the same standards should apply to all sides.
That includes statements made by Duterte herself, particularly when they concern the credibility of the impeachment court or the conduct of senator-judges.
Tensions inside the courtroom are also rising
The public dispute mirrors increasingly tense exchanges inside the Senate.
During one recent hearing, private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan and defense lawyer Kristine Ferrer clashed over whether misleading questions were permissible during cross-examination.
Ferrer maintained that such questions were allowed, while Kapunan argued otherwise. The exchange later spilled onto social media, where prosecutor Armando Ligutan criticized the use of misleading questions. Duterte’s defense team subsequently questioned whether the public post was consistent with courtroom decorum.
House prosecutor Chel Diokno, meanwhile, said both sides should have room to discuss the case publicly, provided their statements remain within the limits imposed by law and the impeachment rules.
The episode underscored the increasingly narrow line between aggressive advocacy and conduct that could be viewed as undermining the proceedings.
What is at stake for Sara Duterte?
The political stakes are unusually high.
Duterte is facing an impeachment trial involving allegations that include misuse of confidential and intelligence funds, alleged accumulation of unexplained wealth, and accusations related to threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and other officials. She has denied the allegations. Reuters reported that a conviction could permanently bar her from holding public office, while Duterte has already announced her intention to seek the presidency in 2028.
The trial has therefore become more than a procedural dispute over courtroom rules.
Every confrontation—whether involving confidential funds, witness testimony, cross-examination, sub judice restrictions or public statements—has the potential to shape how the public views both Duterte’s defense and the credibility of the impeachment court.
Evidence remains at the center of the trial
Despite the political noise, the impeachment case ultimately turns on evidence presented before the Senate impeachment court.
Earlier proceedings included testimony from National Bureau of Investigation officials concerning the investigation into Duterte’s alleged threats against Marcos and other officials.
The Philippine News Agency reported that NBI Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc told the Senate that typographical errors in investigative documents did not change the bureau’s findings or affect the authenticity of the video evidence involving Duterte’s statements.
That testimony illustrates the broader strategy of the two sides: the prosecution is attempting to establish the factual basis of the impeachment allegations, while the defense has repeatedly challenged the reliability, interpretation and handling of evidence.
The constitutional stakes are also significant. The Supreme Court has previously emphasized that impeachment is a constitutional process that must operate within the framework of due process and the Constitution, even though impeachment proceedings are political in nature.
The next battle may be over the rules themselves
For now, neither side appears willing to back down.
The prosecution wants the Senate impeachment court to protect the authority and credibility of the proceedings. Duterte’s defense, meanwhile, has challenged what it sees as attempts to restrict legitimate public discussion of the case.
That leaves the impeachment court facing a difficult balancing act: maintaining courtroom discipline and protecting the integrity of the trial without unnecessarily restricting the parties’ ability to defend themselves before the public.
And as the trial continues, the question may become even more consequential:
Will the Senate impeachment court treat Duterte’s statements as protected political criticism—or as conduct serious enough to warrant a formal response?
That decision could set the tone for the next stage of one of the country’s most politically charged impeachment battles.
Leave a Reply