Metro Manila, Philippines – A heated exchange took place between opposing lawyers in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte on Wednesday, Aug. 12, with the lead defense counsel directly calling out in open court a prosecutor over what it claimed as out of context remarks from the proceedings.
Before the adjournment of the trial, lead defense lawyer Sheila Sison took offense to the online post of prosecution counsel Amando Ligutan about cross examination.
“A principle all lawyers and law students know by heart: Misleading questions are not allowed even on cross examination,” Ligutan wrote on Facebook.
He posted this after Kristine Ferrer, a defense lawyer, was quoted as saying “they are allowed” shortly after opposing counsel Lorna Kapunan mentioned that misleading questions are not allowed in cross examination.
Sison raised the matter with the court presiding officer, saying she finds it “inappropriate” to do it against a fellow lawyer.
“I find it in bad taste to do this at this time…Even as we sit on the opposing side of this hall, we remain to be both members of the bar and as officers of the court, we owe each other respect,” she said.
Sison said Ferrer was taken out of context.
“She was pertaining to the fact that the questions to which, a yes or no maybe answerable are allowed. She’s not referring to misleading…in effect, Atty. Ferrer was only saying leading questions are allowed on cross examination, not misleading questions. And yet we have a private prosecutor immediately taking to social media and posting this implying something against the defense counsel. We will not have this,” Sison said.
The transcript says…
According to the transcript, prosecution counsel Lorna Kapunan told Ferrer, “Never mind if you’re on cross. There are limits to cross examination. Leading, misleading questions are not allowed on cross.”
Ferrer remarked: “They are allowed.”
Kapunan continued: “I don’t think I need to lecture you on that.”
The exchange stemmed from Kapunan’s objection to Ferrer cutting state auditor Xylene del Campo midway in her response to the defense lawyer’s question – if there was an explicit provision in the joint circular on confidential funds that apprehension is needed to prove success of surveillance activities.
Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero quickly asked the counsels “not to allow the generational or seeming generational divide increase the tension in the courtroom,” reminding them they are both members of the Bar.
“I am preventing myself from giving her a spanking…That is what I would have done in the generational divide,” Kapunan responded, adding that she will behave.
Ferrer later on manifested, asking Escudero to prohibit the prosecution from making side comments and learn to respect one another.
‘Do not gaslight the nation’
In a post-trial briefing, House prosecutor Terry Ridon slammed Sison’s remarks.
“Walang pwedeng sisihin iyong depensa dito except iyong sarili nila mga kaibigan. Kasi kung very sharp to the draw ‘yung defense on the conversation and tit for tat during the trial itself, Ms. Ferrer would know, na hindi po iyon dapat ang sinagot noong panahon na iyon,” he said.
“Do not gaslight the nation that kasalanan ni Atty. Ligutan bakit pumutok sa mukha ng depensa ang bagay na ito,” Ridon added.
[Translation: No one can blame the defense here except themselves, my friends. Because if the defense had been very quick to pick up on the conversation and had engaged in a tit for tat exchange during the trial itself, Ms. Ferrer would have known that that was not the answer she should have given at the time…Do not gaslight the nation into believing that it was Atty. Ligutan’s fault that this matter blew up in the defense’s face.]
Escudero said Ligutan will be given a chance to respond to Sison when the trial resumes on Monday, Aug. 17.
Violating subjudice rule
After Sison’s manifestation, Escudero warned lawyers of possible violations to the subjudice rule, prohibiting them from discussing the merits of the case in public.
Without naming names, Escudero said one side has been crossing the line in its remarks upon the court’s observation in the past few weeks.
He said he will make a ruling after Ligutan’s response to Sison on Monday.
“I already talked to the parties two weeks ago, reminding you that you might want to consider appointing spokespersons who are not part of the panel of prosecutors nor a private prosecutor. But you insist on maintaining that,” Escudero said.
“We have it all on tape. We have been monitoring everything…thank you for bringing that up, counsel. It gives me a reason to actually issue the ruling,” he added, referring to Sison.
The prosecution maintained that Ligutan’s remark did not violate the subjudice rule.
“Ang subjudice rule, talking about the merits of the case…He (Ligutan) was basically stating the principle of law on misleading questions. Kung naiiyak ang depensa, kawawa naman sila [If the defense feels like crying, I pity them],” Ridon said, adding that Escudero should disregard the grievances of the defense.
Sison had maintained that while one may argue that it wasn’t about the merits, the defense was not naive to the remarks of Ligutan.
