[ANALYSIS] Duterte impeachment trial Day 15: A trial and a theater like no other

A court hearing is about truth-telling and high stakes, but the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte has likewise turned into a theater.

Atty. Lorna Kapunan of the prosecution and Atty. Kristine Ferrer of the defense provided all the ingredients for both a courtroom trial as well as a theater, complete with artifice and entertainment.

It began with the cross-examination of the prosecution witness Xylene Del Campo.

Feisty lawyers

Hardly had the cast of characters warmed their seats when a question raised by Ferrer provoked Kapunan, triggering a sour exchange between them and setting the tone for Day 15. 

Ferrer was questioning Del Campo about the provisions of a joint circular and pressed her for a direct "yes" or "no" answer. Kapunan stopped Ferrer short, saying the latter was asking a misleading question.

Nothing stopped Kapunan from trying to lecture Ferrer, but to prevent her from going ballistic, Escudero asked her to stop, calling it a “generational divide” to make light of the situation. 

Kapunan did, but only after she declared: “I am preventing myself from giving her a public spanking.” Ferrer didn’t say foul, but she asked the court to restrain Kapunan. 

“I promise to henceforth behave,” Kapunan said.

But minutes into the trial, Kapunan could not be restrained. She would later declare: “I am about to lecture her.” Escudero tried to stop it by saying his piece once again: “We do not want it to generate into a generational divide.”

Ferrer said she admired Kapunan, calling her one of her idols, but the older lawyer must have found it a left-handed compliment. “Let’s end it there,” she said. “It may sound like a eulogy. I am very much alive.”

It was not the first and last of the sour exchanges between them. “Lawyers have different styles,” said the soft-spoken defense lawyer Atty. Michael Poa, who seemed popular among the prosecution team. “But Kristine was not disrespectful.”

The courtroom drama was possibly a result of several reasons: The trial is sui generis. By its very nature, the trial is both a legal and political exercise, and Escudero did not preside over the trial with an iron hand.

The trial was televised, aired nationwide, involving a huge cast of characters of various interests, including the public at large whose real-time social media posts equally raised the courtroom temperature.

'Asked and answered'

In the six-hour trial, the public saw and heard questions already “asked and answered” many times since the first COA auditor, Roderick Wamil, took the witness stand. Many times, Del Campo was asked many questions beyond her area of competence.

For instance, why would Del Campo be asked why Duterte as Vice President and DepEd secretary be given confidential funds when Congress and, by extension, Malacañang were the keepers of the public funds? The question should have zeroed in on the use or misuse of the funds.

Why the repeated questions if the aliases were allowed? The answer has been said many times: COA-ICFAO does documentary audits based only on the joint circular. Congress will have to give COA more teeth in dealing with confidential funds.

Why the repeated questions on the audit observation memorandum, notice of suspension, and notice of disallowance?

So far, the COA has given the OVP a notice of disallowance for some P73.3 million for the period between Dec. 21 and 31, 2022. It has given the DepEd a “credit notice” for part of its questioned P112.5 million in its controversial funds.

All other confidential funds had been flagged by COA, asking for more documentary requirements, but it has likewise given the two agencies some elbow room to make a reply or make an appeal.

Like Wamil, Del Campo said she issued a notice of memorandum in various instances because the OVP failed to sufficiently comply with a joint circular requiring the OVP to provide a financial plan for the use of the confidential funds, provide receipts for the purchase of supplies, and provide justification for the release of the funds to individuals without justification how the payment of rewards resulted in the failure or success of a confidential operation.

The trial would have been more meaningful on Day 15 if the senator-judges had been given more time to ask questions. Senator-judges Bam Aquino and Panfilo Lacson showed signs that they had better questions in mind.

In the past 15 trial days, some lawyers and members of the prosecution were performative, to borrow a young people’s term, trying to catch public attention. Well, trying to win public opinion. After all, the trial is sui generis—the opinion of the public at large is equally important.

The public, either pro- or anti-Duterte, has been part of the trial, as shown by their real-time social media posting. 

Riot act

On Facebook, a veteran journalist called Ferrer “arrogant” and wished she could go back to covering the trial after Ferrer was done with the cross-examination. A PR woman of a sitting senator made a similar comment.

But there were those who also favored Ferrer, obviously younger than Kapunan, but not without some academic and litigation credentials.

Since the day she showed up for the prosecution, Kapunan made everybody feel she was a seasoned lawyer—sometimes funny, sometimes touchy and, make no mistake, overprotective of her case for some good reasons. Her longtime public visibility as a celebrity lawyer has reinforced her standing in the legal community over the years.

She is a female alpha. She made some side comments during the past weeks only a seasoned lawyer like her could make and got away with it. She’s good, except that we never heard a more senior lawyer make similar comments—such as former Justice Serafin Cuevas, the lead counsel of former Chief Justice Renato Corona, in the impeachment trial in 2012.

Before the day was over, lead defense counsel Atty. Sheila Sison took exception to a social media post by another private prosecution lawyer Atty. Amando Ligutan commenting on the Ferrer-Kapunan exchange, particularly on asking alleged “misleading questions.”

Sison is another feisty lawyer. “I find it troubling that a prosecution lawyer would make such a post in the middle of the trial,” she said. “(Ligutan’s) post is inappropriate, in bad taste, and shows lack of decorum for a lawyer.” 

Escudero would allow Ligutan to make a reply in the next hearing. He said he had noticed so many social media postings by “one side” of the cast of characters over the past weeks.

He said he would issue a riot act on Monday for both parties. 

The courtroom drama revealed a much larger issue on social media: We are a nation divided.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the opinions of PhilSTAR L!fe, its parent company and affiliates, or its staff.