In a trial where every question and answer is watched closely, even a single word can become a point of contention. During the Senate impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, words such as “scam” and “lying” were stricken from the record, raising some possible confusion and suspicion.
The Senate is acting as an impeachment court, meaning the proceedings follow rules on questioning, objections, evidence, and courtroom conduct. Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero has repeatedly reminded both the prosecution and defense to avoid remarks that go beyond proper questioning or turn into arguments and conclusions.
QUESTIONS TURN INTO CONCLUSIONS
The issue surfaced again on August 25, when House prosecution lawyer Mae Divinagracia questioned Office of the Vice President assistant chief of staff Lemuel Ortonio about different explanations concerning the use of confidential funds. Divinagracia used the words “scam” and “lying,” but Escudero sustained the objection and ordered the remarks stricken from the record.
This has happened more than once during the trial. On August 4, defense lawyer Michael Poa also asked the court to strike a remark by private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan, who described the alleged misuse of confidential funds as a “scam” involving ₱612 million, meanwhile, Escudero sustained the objection.
The court’s action does not mean that the questions about the confidential funds cannot be discussed. Rather, the problem was the wording used to characterize the issue, since calling something a “scam” or someone “lying” can already suggest a conclusion that still has to be established through evidence.
RE-FOCUS ON EVIDENCES
Escudero has also warned lawyers about making “side remarks” during questioning. On July 14, he told both the prosecution and defense to avoid such remarks and said withdrawn questions would also be stricken, emphasizing that lawyers should not use the proceedings for “showmanship.”
The distinction matters because the trial is dealing with allegations that must still be supported by evidence. On August 25, for example, Ortonio was questioned about the OVP’s confidential funds, including documents and explanations surrounding their use, rather than simply being asked to confirm a conclusion already made by the prosecution.
The Senate’s impeachment rules allow the presiding officer to rule on the materiality, relevancy, competency, and admissibility of evidence. The Rules of Court may also apply when the Senate’s rules do not cover a specific procedure.
In an impeachment trial, the Senate’s rules and procedures determine which statements remain part of the official record. It has to allow prosecutors and defense lawyers to strongly argue their positions while making sure that accusations are supported by evidence and that courtroom questioning does not become a substitute for proving the case.
Under parliamentary procedure, remarks may be stricken when they are considered out of order, irrelevant, or otherwise inconsistent with the rules governing the proceedings. As the proceedings continue, the credibility of the impeachment process will depend not only on what the prosecution and defense say, but on whether the Senate can keep the decision anchored on evidence rather than rhetoric.
