Duterte impeachment trial: Heated exchanges typical of litigation or 'generational divide'?
Day 15 of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial saw a heated exchange between House prosecutor Atty. Lorna Kapunan and defense counsel Atty. Kristine Ferrer during the cross-examination of a witness from the Commission on Audit - Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office.
During the trial on Wednesday, Aug. 12, tension rose between the two parties during the defense's cross-examination of COA-ICFAO state auditor Xylene Del Campo.
Ferrer was asking Del Campo about the provisions of a joint circular when Kapunan stepped in to ask the presiding officer, senator-judge Chiz Escudero, to remind Ferrer to let the witness complete her answers without any interruptions.
In response, Ferrer asked Escudero to let Del Campo answer only with a "yes" or no" as she stressed that she was allowed to raise clarificatory questions during redirect.
“I’m on cross, your Honor,” Ferrer said. To which, Kapunan said, “Never mind if you’re on cross—there are limits to cross-examination. Misleading questions are not allowed in cross. I don’t think I need to lecture you [on] that."
Ferrer maintained that such questions were "allowed" before Escudero intervened and asked both sides to "keep it a notch lower" to prevent "the seeming generational divide" between them from fueling tensions in the courtroom further.
Kapunan quipped that she was already resisting the urge to give Ferrer “a spanking.”
"I am preventing myself from giving her a spanking, your Honor. That is what I have done in the generational divide,” Kapunan said, drawing laughs in the courtroom.
Escudero then reminded Kapunan and Ferrer that they were both members of the Bar and would therefore be treated equally by the impeachment court.
Both counsels complied, with Kapunan promising to “henceforth behave.”
Heated courtroom exchanges are 'part' of litigation
For Atty. Chelsea Ariza, there was a "genuine evidentiary point" beneath the exchange between Ferrer and Kapunan as they appeared to be addressing different propositions. "Atty. Ferrer was seemingly referring to the ordinary permission to use leading questions on cross, while Atty. Kapunan was invoking the separate prohibition against misleading questions," she told PhilSTAR L!fe.
"What I would actually highlight is how quickly it corrected itself," she continued, pointing out that both Kapunan and Ferrer submitted when Escudero stepped in.
"Is this common? Yes. Tempers flare in litigation, especially during long cross-examinations," she said.
According to Atty. Carlo John Pascual, lawyers are expected to challenge testimony, raise objections, and protect their clients’ interests during litigation. "Court trials are naturally adversarial. It's common for lawyers to disagree on some aspects of the proceedings, such as during objections or conduct of the direct/cross/re-direct/re-cross examinations," he said.
But while trial lawyers "say sharp things to each other all the time," Ariza noted that it still has its limits. "Humor can occur in contentious proceedings, but counsels remain bound by professional and courtroom-civility obligations."
Atty. Race Del Rosario stressed that aggressive advocacy "should come with professional courtesy and courtroom decorum." He added, "Counsel should generally address the presiding officer rather than argue directly with opposing counsel."
Atty. Danielito Jimenez echoed this, emphasizing the importance of respect in litigation. "For trial practitioners, maintaining decorum at all times is a must—not just toward the court, but also toward witnesses and the opposing counsel," he told L!fe, adding that while heated exchanges may be unavoidable, lawyers should take responsibility and promptly apologize when they lose their composure.
For Atty. Alel Cayanan, both counsels did not cross the line in the heated exchange on Day 15 of the Duterte trial. "The way both counsels addressed each other was candid, professional, and still within the bounds of decency."
Was the Ferrer-Kapunan exchange reflective of a 'generational divide'?
Del Rosario found that the incident illustrates how experience can shape courtroom dynamics. While he understood Escudero's description of it as a “generational divide,” he said he saw it more as a contrast between lawyers at different stages of their careers.
For him, it was evident how Kapunan's experience and caliber affected the dynamics of the exchange. "There were moments when Atty. Ferrer appeared startled or put on the defensive, which perhaps explains why her responses sometimes became more aggressive or even came across as condescending," he explained. "Experience teaches you not only how to argue, but also when to press, when to hold back, and how to remain composed when the proceedings become contentious."
In an interview with ANC, legal analyst Atty. Tranquil Salvador III said that heated exchanges could be associated with how lawyers were trained. "Sabi nga ni presiding officer, may parang 'generational divide.' Baka iba ‘yung training ng trial lawyer before, which, to some extent, I understand," he said. "Makikita mo noon, ang trial lawyer ay talagang aggressive—minsan may iba’t ibang paraan, puwedeng inisin kita, talagang uubusin ko pasensya mo, minsan hindi ka patatanungin."
He noted that trial practice traditionally demanded the ability to deal with different kinds of people. "To be a trial lawyer requires a lot of patience and you have to think on your feet. You should be ready to face any personality that you’ll meet," he said.
Salvador, however, pointed out that heated exchanges may not necessarily help the public understand the legal process because attention can shift from the real issues to the lawyers' personalities.
Some lawyers cautioned against attributing the exchange to experience or age gap.
Atty. Hyacinth Merioles observed that Ferrer looked tense as Kapunan appeared to guide or correct her during cross-examination, which seemed like an assertion of seniority or “moral ascendancy.” However, she found it "funny" that Escudero had to point out a "generational divide" between Kapunan and Ferrer.
"It just made the air between the two lawyers awkward," she told L!fe.
Atty. Jefferson Legada noted that people must bear in mind that Atty. Ferrer "is not a relatively new lawyer as many people, especially the viewing public, would perceive her to be."
"She has been a lawyer since 2011 and it cannot be said that Atty. Ferrer is somehow inferior because of the age gap or the 'generational gap' as what others say, as compared to Atty. Kapunan," he said.
For her part, Ariza pointed out that the heated exchanges were a function of role and not of age.
"Atty. Kapunan and Atty. Ferrer have opposing duties, and they will collide in any contested proceeding," she said. "Age and years in practice shape style, but they did not cause this. Put two lawyers of the same age and the same experience in those seats and you would very likely see the same tension."
