By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA, Philippines — The House prosecution team has warned Vice President Sara Duterte against statements questioning the integrity of the Senate impeachment court, saying repeated claims that the proceedings have been tainted by “bending the law” could cross the line from legitimate criticism into contemptuous conduct.
Prosecution counsel and spokesperson Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr. said Monday that while parties before a court have the right to challenge proceedings and express legal objections, that right does not extend to attacking the tribunal itself.
“Litigants can criticize the courts, but they can never attack its integrity,” Tolosa said during an online briefing of the House prosecution team.
He said an allegation that the impeachment court was deliberately disregarding or manipulating the law could potentially fall under the sub judice rule and may constitute contempt of court, depending on how the statement is evaluated by the tribunal.
Tolosa made the statement after being asked about the defense panel’s position that Duterte was merely expressing her personal assessment of the proceedings when she criticized the impeachment process.
He said jurisprudence recognizes limits on public commentary involving cases that remain under judicial or quasi-judicial consideration.
“If you say something that attacks the integrity of the court, that is very dangerous, especially in this kind of case of this magnitude,” Tolosa said.
He warned that repeatedly portraying the proceedings as legally compromised could influence public perception of whatever verdict the impeachment court eventually reaches.
According to Tolosa, such statements could lead people to believe that an unfavorable ruling against Duterte was the product of an allegedly defective process rather than the evidence and arguments presented during the trial.
“It may destroy the people’s confidence in the impeachment proceedings. It could cause a prejudgment,” he said.
Tolosa, however, stopped short of declaring that Duterte had already committed contempt or violated the sub judice rule.
He emphasized that his comments represented the prosecution’s legal assessment, not a ruling by the impeachment court.
Presiding officer Sen. Francis Escudero and the senator-judges have yet to determine whether Duterte’s remarks constitute a violation warranting sanctions.
“I don’t want to pre-empt the presiding officer’s and impeachment court’s decision on this matter,” Tolosa said.
He said the matter should be left to the proper authorities, particularly the presiding officer and ultimately the impeachment court acting as a body.
Despite the dispute over Duterte’s public statements, Tolosa acknowledged that the defense retains broad latitude to challenge the prosecution’s case.
Duterte’s lawyers may object to evidence, cross-examine witnesses and present their own proof, while the prosecution remains responsible for establishing the allegations contained in the impeachment articles.
But Tolosa said both sides should exercise restraint in their public statements while the court continues to weigh the evidence.
The warning comes as Duterte faces impeachment proceedings over allegations involving the alleged misuse of confidential funds, unexplained wealth, bribery and grave threats.
At stake, beyond the charges themselves, is the credibility of the impeachment process—and whether the eventual decision will be judged by the evidence presented in court or by competing claims that the proceedings were compromised from the start.
ia/xf
