By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA — The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte has erupted into a new battle over courtroom conduct, with House prosecutors accusing the Vice President and her defense team of undermining the very constitutional process they are fighting to defeat.
The prosecution’s message was blunt: if the Senate impeachment court is going to reprimand anyone, it should start with Duterte herself.
House prosecution spokesperson Rep. Renee Co of Kabataan party-list said Duterte’s public criticism of the trial and suggestions that the process was “bending the law” were themselves an attack on the constitutional proceedings.
Co also seized on a tense courtroom exchange between private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan and defense lawyer Kristine Ferrer over whether misleading questions are permissible during cross-examination.
When Kapunan said such questions were not allowed, Ferrer reportedly answered: “They are allowed.”
For the prosecution, the exchange was more than a courtroom disagreement.
Co said the defense had effectively revealed its strategy for the impeachment proceedings.
“Sa bibig nahuhuli ang isda,” Co said, arguing that the defense’s own statement exposed how it intended to challenge prosecution questioning.
But the confrontation did not stop inside the impeachment chamber.
Private prosecutor Armando Ligutan later took to social media to reiterate that misleading questions are not permitted even during cross-examination—prompting Duterte’s lead defense counsel Sheila Sison to accuse him of violating courtroom decorum.
The prosecution, however, pushed back.
Rep. Chel Diokno of Akbayan party-list said the sub judice rule does not automatically silence parties from discussing the case, provided their statements remain within legal limits.
He stressed that courtroom decorum demands respect—not necessarily friendliness or “kindness” between opposing lawyers.
The increasingly heated exchanges highlight a larger problem confronting the impeachment court: how far can both sides go in publicly arguing their positions without turning the trial itself into a political and media battlefield?
For the prosecution, Duterte’s public criticism has crossed that line.
Co argued that the Vice President should answer not only for her statements about the trial but also for the questions surrounding her use of confidential and intelligence funds—issues that remain central to the impeachment controversy.
The defense, meanwhile, has yet to respond to Co’s latest accusations.
What began as a dispute over a question during cross-examination has now become another test of the impeachment court’s authority.
And with both camps accusing the other of violating the rules, the Senate impeachment court faces an increasingly difficult task: keep the trial focused on evidence, enforce its rules without fear or favor, and prevent the proceedings from becoming a courtroom war fought as much outside the chamber as inside it.
ia/xf
