Sara Duterte trial: Prosecution navigates minefield after sub judice ruling

MANIFESTATION. Prosecution counsel Amado Virgil Ligutan makes a manifestation on Day 19 of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte on August 26, 2026.

Senate Social Media Unit

'That's a very eloquent way of issuing a gag order,' a constitutional lawyer tells Rappler

AT A GLANCE

• The impeachment court has implemented stricter sanctions for violations of the sub judice rule, leading the prosecution panel to be more cautious in their public statements.
• The ruling includes public reprimands for first-time offenders and fines for repeat violations, with a focus on comments made by prosecutors that have been deemed problematic.
• Prosecutors expressed concerns about the implications of the ruling, suggesting it may create complications in their communication strategy, while also highlighting the unique nature of the impeachment trial compared to regular court proceedings.

This is AI-generated. Read the article for full context. Report any errors.

MANILA, Philippines – After the impeachment court laid out clearer sanctions against violators of the sub judice rule on Wednesday, August 26., the prosecution panel has been more careful than ever.

No public or private prosecutor faced House-organized press conferences, while some gave relatively few words during chance interviews.

“Personally, I will behave,” private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan said.

The ruling read by presiding officer Chiz Escudero promised public reprimand for first-time offenders of Rule 18 of the impeachment rules handbook, and a fine of P30,000 for every succeeding offense. The said provision prohibits senator-judges, prosecutors, the respondent, and their defense team from commenting on the merits of the case outside the court.

While the penalties apply not only to the prosecution but also to the defense, it is not difficult to surmise that the House side is whom Escudero is referring to when he says one party has violated the sub judice rule more than the other.

When Escudero read remarks the court found problematic, most of the soundbites came from prosecutors, such as Jay Tolosa, Amando Virgil Ligutan, Mae Divinagracia, and Terry Ridon.

Wednesday’s ruling was triggered by defense lawyer Sheila Sison’s previous move to call out Ligutan for posting on Facebook that misleading questions are not allowed even during cross-examinations. The comment was an apparent reaction to the claim made by defense lawyer Kristine Ferrer before the court.

Before Escudero issued his ruling, Ligutan was given the opportunity to deliver his counter-manifestation, in which he insisted he did not violate the court’s sub judice rule.

“To the defense, the post is not about you. It is not personal. It is about the law that we all adhere to. It is about what we teach the public who are watching our trial. Correcting a mistake is never wrong. Doing it while a hearing is ongoing, online, does not make it not right,” Ligutan added.

Press briefing sans prosecutors

As the impact of the ruling reverberates, the House opted not to let a member of the prosecution team face the media for its regular lunch break and post-trial press conferences on Wednesday.

Instead, the media relied on soundbites of prosecution spokesman Zia Alonto Adiong, and deputy speakers Paolo Ortega, Janette Garin, and Jay Khonghun. For Rappler’s special coverage, we were able to book Manila 6th District Representative Benny Abante, one of the endorsers of the impeachment complaint that became the basis of the impeachment articles transmitted to the Senate.

“(The sub judice rule) should also extend to the respondent,” Adiong said. “Whatever she says should also be guided by the sub judice rule…(such as her statement on the impeachment process) ‘bending the law,'” Adiong said.

Duterte’s statement in early August — an apparent swipe at the House and the impeachment court — was notably absent from Escudero’s examples of remarks that violated the sub judice rule.

While Escudero was delivering his speech, Duterte in fact issued another statement calling out the prosecution for calling her a scam mastermind, and senator-judge Raffy Tulfo for describing her special disbursing officer Gina Acosta as “stupid.”

Lead prosecutor Jinky Luistro later informed the court about Duterte’s latest remarks. Escudero said the enforcement of new sanctions will apply prospectively, giving her the same clean slate as prosecutors who made the statements flagged by the court.

Absolute prohibition?

Prosecutors Kapunan, Ridon, and Tolosa said they respect the court’s decision, although the ruling creates a more complicated communications terrain.

The prosecution team, for one, has to discuss whether Tolosa stays on as its spokesperson. The defense team already said it is looking for a new talking head as defense lawyer Michael Poa seeks to relinquish the post.

“Perhaps we need some clarification regarding the order, because it sounded like an absolute prohibition to talk about matters that may touch on the merits of the case. There’s an exemption to that sub judice ruling under jurisprudence which is the doctrine of true, fair, and accurate reporting. If you’re just quoting what has already been stated by the witness in an open court…that shall not be a violation of the sub judice rule,” Tolosa said.

“This is not a regular trial. It is a political, constitutional, and legal process. It is very different from the proceedings prescribed in regular courts,” Ridon added.

The new rules appear to constrain the defense less than the prosecution, which bears the burden of proof while also seeking to win the court of public opinion, as the sui generis trial — a proceeding that is a class of its own — unfolds.

“That’s a very eloquent way of issuing a gag order,” constitutional lawyer Lulu Reyes told Rappler.