Escudero imposes two-strike rule to keep erring impeachment parties in line
Impeachment court presiding officer Chiz Escudero announced a two-strike policy meant to discourage the prosecution and defense parties, as well as the senator-judges, from behaviors that undermine their impartiality and political neutrality throughout Vice President Sara Dutere's impeachment trial.
On Wednesday, Aug. 26, Escudero delivered an over-30-minute ruling in which he addressed the "broader concerns affecting the impartiality, decorum, and integrity of the impeachment court."
Invoking Rule 18 of the impeachment court, Escudero said, "I hope senator-judges shall refrain from unparliamentary remarks, personal attacks, invitations of improper motive, and other language incompatible with the dignity of these proceedings and of parliamentary courtesy to other people."
He ordered that "no party shall make public comments, statements, insinuations, or rhetorical questions" that prejudge the matter at hand, question the court's rulings, "substitute media pressure for evidence," and sow distrust in the court's impartiality.
Escudero imposed a two-strike rule for those who will violate the court's ruling.
A first offense would merit a "severe reprimand and stern admonition in open court, placed permanently on the record as a final warning."
A second offense fetches a maximum fine of P30,000 per violation. The offending lawyer or party may also face restrictions on "speaking, objecting, or examining witnesses on the floor," Escudero said.
If a member of the Bar is found to be in violation of the rules, the record will be formally transmitted to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and/or the Supreme Court "for possible disciplinary sanction regarding the person's license to practice."
"Lawyers are prohibited to comment or publicize opinion pertaining to a pending proceeding in a manner that may cause prejudgment, sway public perception, influence the tribunal, or create a widespread perception of guilt or innocence," Escudero maintained.
He also reminded the court of "professional responsibility" when using social media, and prohibited "the dissemination of false or unverified claims or disinformation."
Public post, statements during the trial
Escudero's pronouncement came after a series of statements made in the course of the trial.
During her direct examination of Commission on Audit state auditor Roderick Wamil on Aug. 4, the prosecution's Atty. Lorna Kapunan asked the witness if the OVP's alleged misuse of public funds equates to prima facie evidence.
"Ang tawag ko lang doon, hindi prima facie evidence. Kung ako ang tatanungin, scam ito," Kapunan said, to which defense Atty. Michael Poa immediately called a move to strike from the record.
On Aug. 12, another tense moment arose between Kapunan and Atty. Kristine Ferrer from the defense. Ferrer was cross-examining state auditor Xylene del Campo when Kapunan told her, "Leading...misleading questions are not allowed," to which Ferrer replied, "It is allowed."
Later in the day, counsel for the prosecution Atty. Amando Ligutan made a Facebook post where he maintained that all lawyers and law students know that "misleading questions are not allowed even on cross-examination."
Before the trial adjourned, lead defense counsel Atty. Sheila Sison raised a manifestation regarding Ligutan's post. She explained that Ferrer's "It is allowed" remark referred to whether the witness could be directed to answer yes or no, not to misleading questions.
Reading the transcript of the exchange, Escudero clarified on Aug. 26 that there may have been some confusion regarding which terms each of the counsels was referring to.
Another incident the defense panel objected to stemmed from the trial on Tuesday, Aug. 25, where counsel for prosecution Atty. Mae Divinagracia described Duterte as the "architect and mastermind" of the Office of the Vice President's misuse of its confidential funds. After court adjourned, she told reporters, "We just want to call a spade a spade. To us, it was a scam that was masterminded by the Vice President."
Ferrer objected to the terms, calling them "inappropriate."
Duterte released a statement the next day requesting the House prosecution panel to stick to evidence.
"Prosecutors and members of Congress who want to legitimize the two impeachment complaints—filed without a shred of evidence—should be confident in the strength of the case. They should not be fishing for evidence during the trial or desperately try to turn something they wish to be true into a wild story of alleged wrongdoing," she said.
"A strong case does not need the adornment of theatrics," she added. "Insults reveal the need to feign confidence in the face of a weak presentation."
