By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA — Senate impeachment court Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero is preparing to tighten rules governing public statements by lawyers in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte after increasingly heated exchanges inside and outside the courtroom.
Escudero’s move followed a dispute over a social-media post by private prosecutor Amando Virgil Ligutan, which Duterte’s lead counsel Sheila Sison viewed as a criticism of defense lawyer Kristine Ferrer during the cross-examination of COA auditor Xylene Del Campo.
The incident prompted Escudero to warn that lawyers could not repeatedly cross the line while the impeachment case remained under active consideration.
The coming ruling is expected to address the sub judice rule, which limits public commentary that could prejudice or interfere with ongoing judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.
The issue has become increasingly important as the trial enters a contentious evidentiary phase.
During Day 15, Ferrer aggressively challenged Del Campo’s findings on the Office of the Vice President’s confidential funds, producing several sharp exchanges between the defense and prosecution.
Escudero intervened and urged both sides to temper their language.
But the courtroom confrontation soon spilled into social media, prompting the presiding officer to consider formal limits on public statements.
The prosecution has urged the court to apply the rules consistently to everyone involved, including Duterte herself when she comments publicly on the impeachment proceedings.
The dispute comes as Del Campo’s testimony remains central to Article I of the impeachment case.
The COA auditor has maintained that the OVP’s confidential-fund transactions contained irregularities and that ordinary supplier information was not automatically confidential, meaning receipts and invoices should have been submitted to substantiate purchases.
The defense has challenged those findings and questioned the handling of confidential-fund documents.
Ferrer also pressed Del Campo on unusual names appearing in acknowledgment receipts. The auditor acknowledged that an unusual name alone did not establish that a recipient was fictitious.
That exchange underscored the evidentiary battle at the heart of the trial.
The prosecution must prove its allegations through credible evidence.
The defense must be allowed to challenge that evidence.
And the senator-judges must ultimately decide the case based on the record before them.
Escudero’s planned ruling is therefore more than a question of courtroom etiquette.
It is an attempt to keep a historic constitutional proceeding from becoming a parallel political battle on social media.
Both sides have the right to fight aggressively—but within the rules.
The message from the Senate court is clear: challenge the evidence, attack the arguments and defend your case—but keep the impeachment battle inside the courtroom.
When the final vote comes, it should be the evidence—not the noise outside the chamber—that decides Duterte’s fate.
ia/xf
