THE Senate impeachment court on Wednesday imposed stricter rules on public statements about the trial and asked the defense team to remind their client, Vice President Sara Duterte, of the sub judice rule after she called on the prosecution to prove its case “with evidence — not insults, speculation or political theatrics.”
Impeachment court Presiding Officer Francis Escudero said the strict rules barring parties, lawyers, witnesses and senator-judges from commenting on the merits of the case outside the courtroom were intended to protect due process, preserve the integrity of the proceedings and prevent the trial from being fought in the court of public opinion.
Escudero said Duterte’s latest statement was covered by the sub judice rule, but prospectivity applies, so no action will be taken.
Escudero warned that future violations may carry penalties.
Since Duterte is also a lawyer, repeated violations could be referred to authorities handling disciplinary cases against lawyers.
The principle of sub judice restricts public discussion and commentaries on an active case by participants in the trial to ensure a fair and unbiased decision based on evidence.
Escudero urged fellow senator-judges to “observe impartiality and political neutrality” and refrain from making unparliamentary, offensive, and improper remarks during the impeachment trial.
“If a senator judge is alleged to have violated the impeachment oath, Rule 3, Rule 18, or any other applicable rule of the Senate,” he said, the matter may be referred to the Senate Committee on Ethics and Privileges. Escudero warned that violations may be subject to an ethics complaint.
The ruling came after concerns over public statements by persons covered by Rule 18, including lawyers involved in the trial.
He also cited the Code of Judicial Conduct and Accountability, which bars judges from making comments that could affect the outcome of a pending case, impair the fairness of proceedings or diminish public confidence in the court’s impartiality.
He cited Supreme Court jurisprudence allowing judges to ask searching and clarificatory questions to test a witness’ credibility and elicit the truth, even if the answers ultimately benefit one side.
“The inquiry must remain relevant, material, fair, and directed toward clarification of truth,” Escudero said, stressing that questioning should not turn into partisan advocacy or an announcement of a conclusion already reached.
Escudero then announced a “two-strike” rule for violations of Rule 18, which restricts public disclosures concerning the merits of the impeachment case and applies to the presiding officer, senator-judges, prosecutors, Duterte, their respective lawyers, and witnesses.
For the first offense, a violator will receive a “severe reprimand and stern admonition in open court, placed permanently on the record as a final warning,” Escudero said.
For a second and every succeeding violation, the court may impose the maximum P30,000 fine per offense and, when warranted, restrict an offending lawyer or party from speaking, objecting or examining witnesses on the floor. “
Escudero said prohibited commentary may include evaluating disputed facts or the credibility of witnesses, weighing the relevance or sufficiency of evidence, assessing the viability of an impeachment charge or defense, advocating a particular disposition, or forecasting the eventual vote.
For lawyers, he said the court may also forward the record of the violation to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or Supreme Court for possible disciplinary action affecting their license to practice law.
He stressed that the restrictions do not prevent lawyers from vigorously presenting their cases inside the impeachment court.
Escudero warned that “trial by publicity” threatens the independence of the court, diminishes the dignity of the tribunal and risks substituting public outrage for evidence.
The presiding officer again suggested that both sides designate spokespersons who are not part of their legal teams.
“This court will close the door to trial by publicity, but it will keep the courtroom open to the disciplined advocacy where evidence is tested, error is corrected, and justice is done,” he added.
Both sides will comply
The House prosecution team vowed to comply with the Senate impeachment court’s strict enforcement of its sub judice rule, as it also insisted that the same standard must apply to all parties, including Vice President Duterte.
“First of all, we respect the decision of the impeachment court regarding the implementation of Rule 18,” prosecution spokesman and adviser Robert Ace Barbers said at a press briefing.
“We also expect that this ruling, this Rule 18, must also apply to other parties, including the respondent,” he said.
Deputy Speaker Jefferson Khonghun of Zambales said the prosecution would closely watch how the rule is enforced, calling its implementation a “litmus test” for the impeachment court.
“The only thing the prosecution team is seeking is fairness,” Khonghun said, adding that statements by the defense team and Duterte should be subject to the same scrutiny as those made by prosecutors.
Duterte’s defense team has yet to find a replacement spokesman but acknowledged a “sense of urgency” following the impeachment court’s ruling on sub judice, defense counsel Michael Wesley Poa — who has also served as spokesman — said Wednesday.
Poa also added that he would discuss the ruling with Duterte, including how she should handle public statements that could potentially touch on the impeachment proceedings.
He said he did not yet have a strategy for preventing Duterte from making statements that could potentially violate the sub judice rule, particularly in unscheduled or “ambush” interviews.
“She’s the vice president, she’s our client,” Poa said, adding that Duterte also has the right, “to a certain degree,” to express her views while facing the proceedings.
Questions for Ortonio
The ruling came on Day 19 of the trial, as the senator-judges questioned the Office of the Vice President’s (OVP) Assistant Secretary and Assistant Chief of Staff Lemuel Ortonio.
Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian and other senator-judges questioned why Ortonio appeared to have relied heavily on the representations of Col. Raymund Dante Lachica without personally examining acknowledgment receipts and other supporting documents before preparing the OVP’s responses to Commission on Audit observations.
They questioned the use of medicines as supposed intelligence rewards, the absence of competitive bidding for some purchases, the use of questionable aliases and the apparent purchase of furniture using confidential funds.
The questioning also turned to the chain of accountability for the confidential funds. Senator-Judge Risa Hontiveros asked whether Duterte knew of and approved the OVP’s responses to COA, while Gatchalian questioned who within the OVP actually knew how the hundreds of millions of pesos in confidential funds were spent.
Senator-Judge Francis Pangilinan asked when the disbursement of confidential funds could be considered legally completed and who could establish that the money was actually turned over to Lachica.
Escudero, meanwhile, raised an accounting issue involving Lachica, questioning whether he was the actual end-user of the funds or merely a conduit who subsequently submitted receipts purportedly representing payments to informants.
Senator-Judge Vicente Sotto III confirmed that Lachica, who spent the OVP’s confidential funds, is not part of its payroll.
Ortonio said Lachica was designated by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) as group commander of the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group (VPSPG), and was not an employee of the OVP.
Lachica has been a recurring figure in the testimony, particularly of former OVP special disbursing officer Gina Acosta on Aug. 17 and Aug. 24, where she admitted turning over P125 million in confidential funds to the military officer in December 2022.
Acosta said the cash, which was contained in four travel bags, was handed over to Lachica on Duterte’s orders.
Only VP and Lachica knew
Also during the trial, Ortonio said that only Duterte and Lachica knew where and how the OVP’s P500 million in confidential funds were spent.
Ortonio said it was his understanding that Duterte, as head of the agency, would have known how activities financed through the confidential funds were carried out. He confirmed that Lachica knew how the funds were used because he headed the OVP’s security operations.
