The sub judice rule adopted by the Senate impeachment court applies not only to the senator-judges and the lawyers of both sides but to the accused herself, Vice President Sara Duterte.
Sen. Francis Escudero, as presiding officer of the Senate impeachment court, made this clear in a ruling he read out in full during Wednesday’s hearing, and which he ordered conveyed by the defense lawyers to their client.
According to Escudero, Duterte is also covered by Rule 18 of the Rules of Impeachment, which governs public statements concerning the merits of a pending impeachment case.
Escudero issued the ruling on the same day Duterte, in a media statement, called out the prosecutors for resorting to ‘insults, speculation, or political theatrics’ in questioning her aides at the witness stand, saying such tactics only mask the weakness of the case against her.
‘A strong case does not need the adornment of theatrics. A Senator calling a witness ‘stupid,’ a lawyer calling me the ‘mastermind of a scam’ or another witness referring to me as a ‘brat,’ does not prove a case, nor does it produce evidence,’ the vice president said.
According to the prosecution team, Duterte’s statement came out ‘almost simultaneously’ with Escudero reading out his ruling on impartiality and decorum.
Noting this, Escudero said ‘prospectivity would apply’ or that the ruling would no longer cover what happened that day but future infractions.
‘However, the presiding officer would like to remind, through the lead counsel for the respondent, her client to kindly observe the ruling of the presiding officer as well as the rules of the impeachment court, specifically Rule 18, on the subject matter in regard to making comments on the merits of the case,’ Escudero said.
‘Because henceforth, again given the prospectivity of the ruling, the necessary actions will be taken against her not only by the court, but also given that she is a lawyer,’ he added.
‘With respect to prior statements or conduct covered by Rule 18, the court shall extend grace, exercise liberality and wipe the slate clean. Tabula rasa, so to speak. From this point forward, however, Rule 18 shall be strictly enforced,’ he added.
While Rule 18 applies only to prosecutors, defense counsels, witnesses, and the impeached official, Escudero served notice to the spokespersons of both panels that they are covered by Rule 71, which invokes the code of conduct for public officials and the rule on indirect contempt.
He reiterated his earlier suggestion that the parties appoint spokespersons that are not members of the legal teams.
Two-strike rule
He also reminded all parties, including senator-judges, not to discuss the merits of the case in the press – or engage in ‘trial by publicity’ – so as not ‘threaten the court’s integrity, degrade (it’s) dignity, and weaponize the media to substitute public outrage for actual evidence.’
A two-strike rule would be followed, he said, with the first violation earning a severe reprimand from the court, and the second and subsequent offenses penalized with a fine of P30,000 each.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Supreme Court will also be notified of the violations for possible disciplinary action on the erring lawyer, which may take his or her license to practice into consideration.
Senator-judges should maintain restraint and political neutrality, Escudero said, citing their oath ‘to do impartial justice’ in the vice president’s trial.
While senator-judges can directly ask witnesses for clarification, he cautioned them against using their questions for partisan ends.
What ‘merits’ mean
As the prosecution team, Escude said its duty is not to convict but to ensure justice is done. The duty of the defense, on the other hand, is not to secure an acquittal at all costs but ‘to provide competent, efficient, conscientious, and diligent representation.’
He said defense lawyers must ‘faithfully protect their client’s constitutional and procedural rights, rigorously test the prosecution’s evidence, and hold the prosecution to the burden of proof,’ while remaining within the bounds of law and ethics.
For purposes of this trial, a statement pertains to the merits when, viewed in its full context, it evaluates a disputed fact; the credibility of a witness; or the relevance, probative value, weight, or sufficiency of particular evidence; assesses the legal viability of an Article of Impeachment or a substantive defense; advocates a particular disposition of the charges; or announces or forecasts the ultimate vote,’ he said.