Sub judice rule? Tolosa notes VP claim that Marcos controls Senate

MANILA, Philippines — Prosecution counsel Benjamin Tolosa Jr. urges a fair application of the Senate impeachment court’s sub judice ruling, pointing out that Vice President Sara Duterte herself violated it by claiming that senator-judges were all under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s control.

In an interview on Friday with reporters covering the House, Tolosa said that Duterte made an official statement that appeared to be not only delving into the merits of the impeachment case against her, but also attacking the court’s credibility and integrity.

Tolosa was referring to Duterte’s remarks last Sept. 7, when she said that, even if Marcos had control of “the senators, prosecutors, judges and police,” she believed that some lawyers were helping her fight and would eventually win her cases.

Article continues after this advertisement

“If I’m not mistaken, this is Sept. 7: This is an official statement of the Vice President talking about the impeachment proceedings and other legal proceedings that she is facing. She said: ‘Many are saying that they’re stressed by the impeachment and other cases I’m facing, ’” Tolosa said in a mix of English and Filipino.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

“So the context is clear — talking about impeachment and other cases. And this is what the vice president said: ‘Marcos may have control over senators, fiscals, judges, and police.’ Again, our position here is clear: Ot’s an attack against the integrity of the court. There is no ambiguity there as to what its meaning is,” he added.

READ: Sara Duterte claims Marcos controls Senate, judges, police https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2300747/sara-duterte-claims-marcos-controls-senate-judges-police

According to Tolosa, Duterte does not even have to specify that she was referring to senator-judges in her statement, as senators are the ones sitting in the impeachment court, and she already mentioned the impeachment case as context.

Referring to the sub judice, he said: “It should be applied fairly and justly to everyone that is covered by it.”

Article continues after this advertisement

Tolosa’s statement came after he and public prosecutor Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon were issued show-cause orders, asking them to explain why they should not be penalized for a supposed violation of sub judice rules during media interviews.

In a statement on Friday morning, Ridon said his remarks during interviews were only intended to explain the impeachment proceedings to the public and not violate the sub judice rule.

Article continues after this advertisement

The lawmaker also said that he had filed on Thursday afternoon his reply to the show-cause order issued against him by the impeachment court.

READ: Ridon says trial remarks meant to explain, not influence impeach court

After the issuance of the show-cause orders, former Rep. Robert Ace Barbers, House prosecution adviser and spokesperson, said the sub judice rule must be equally applied to the defense side, particularly Duterte.

In an online press conference on Friday, Barbers was asked about the responses of Ridon and Tolosa to the show-cause orders — to which he stressed that the sub judice rule should not merely apply to the prosecution side.

“This does not apply only to the prosecutors. It should include the defense lawyers, the senator-judges, and the respondent,” Barbers said.

Stricter implementation

A stricter implementation of the sub judice rule came after a manifestation from lead counsel for respondent Sheila Sison last Aug. 12, when she questioned prosecution counsel Amando Virgil Ligutan over a Facebook post where he said that a “principle all lawyers and law students know by heart” is that “misleading questions are not allowed even on cross-examination.”

Sison said Ligutan did not name anyone, but he was clearly referring to counsel for respondent Kristine Ferrer — particularly the exchange between her and another prosecution counsel, Lorna Kapunan.

Sison was referring to a tense moment during the cross-examination of state auditor Xylene Mae del Campo, when Kapunan strongly objected to Ferrer’s habit of cutting the witness off before she could answer questions.

As she insisted that Ferrer was mistaken in stating that she could throw questions answerable only by yes or no, Kapunan said: “Misleading questions are not allowed.” Ferrer responded by saying, “It is allowed.” 

But Sison said that Ferrer’s “it is allowed” quip was not a reply to Kapunan’s “misleading questions are not allowed” even on cross-examination statement — making Ligutan’s social media post something done in “bad faith.”

In response to this manifestation, Presiding Senator_Judge Francis Escudero said last Aug. 26 that, while previous violations would no longer be punished, the ruling will apply to all parties moving forward. 

READ: Escudero draws line on trial statements, warns of 2-strike muzzle

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

For lawyers representing the prosecution and defense, public reprimand with admonition awaits sub judice rule violators on their first strike. For subsequent violations, a P30,000 fine will be imposed, and the offender may be restricted from speaking, objecting, or examining witnesses on the floor. /atm