Senate Impeachment Court Cracks Down on VP Sara Duterte's Statement, Citing Sub Judice Rule

In a recent ANC 24/7 report, the Senate impeachment court clamped down on Vice President Sara Duterte, ruling that her public statement condemning "name-calling" during her trial is a violation of the sub judice rule. The ruling, delivered on Wednesday, serves as a stark reminder that the rules of the court apply to everyone, including the highest-ranking official on trial, as the proceedings grind toward a September 1 resumption.

Senate Impeachment Court Cracks Down on VP Sara Duterte’s Statement, Citing Sub Judice Rule

Manila, Philippines — The Senate impeachment court on Wednesday formally rebuked Vice President Sara Duterte for issuing a public statement that commented on the merits of her ongoing trial, warning that such actions will no longer be tolerated as the proceedings move forward. Presiding Officer and Senate President Francis "Chiz" Escudero ruled that the Vice President's remarks are "clearly covered" by the sub judice rule, marking a significant escalation in the court's efforts to maintain the integrity of the historic trial.

The Statement That Drew the Ruling

Earlier on Wednesday, Day 19 of the trial, Vice President Duterte released a statement condemning the "name-calling" she said has been hurled during the proceedings. She asserted that the accusations against her should be proven with evidence, not with insults, speculations, or political theatrics. The statement was immediately brought to the floor of the impeachment court by House lead prosecutor and Batangas Representative Gerville Luistro, who flagged it as a potential breach of the rules.

Escudero did not mince words in his response. "I find it unacceptable," he said from the dais, addressing the chamber in Pasay City. He directed lead defense counsel Sheila Sison to remind her client, Vice President Duterte, to "kindly observe" the sub judice ruling and the impeachment court's rules. He stressed that Rule 18 applies not just to the prosecutors and senator-judges, but explicitly to the person impeached herself.

What the Sub Judice Rule Says

The ruling is anchored on Rule 18 of the Senate Impeachment Rules, a provision designed to protect the fairness of the trial from public influence. The rule explicitly states: "The Presiding Officer, the Members of the Senate, the prosecutors, the person impeached, and their respective counsel and witnesses shall refrain from making any comments and disclosures in public pertaining to the merits of a pending impeachment trial."

This week, the court had already barred senator-judges and counsels for both the prosecution and defense from speaking publicly on the merits of the case. Wednesday's ruling extends that prohibition's enforcement directly to the Vice President, signaling that the court is serious about keeping the trial's deliberations within the confines of the Senate chamber. Escudero warned that the court will strictly enforce the rule moving forward, issuing a pointed admonition: "You know who you are. We know who you are."

Despite the stern warning, the court decided to "wipe the slate clean" of past violations, choosing not to penalize earlier remarks made by various parties. This decision allows the trial to proceed without the distraction of retroactive sanctions, but the message is clear: the grace period is over.

A Court Warning for All Parties

Beyond the rebuke of the Vice President, Escudero took the opportunity to remind the prosecution of its primary duty. He emphasized that the object of the prosecution is not to secure a conviction at all costs, but to see that justice is done and that the case is justly resolved. This reminder came as the prosecution team has been using strong language in its presentations, including the words "modus" and "scam" to describe the alleged misuse of confidential funds.

In response to the Presiding Officer's reminder, the prosecution acknowledged the court's authority. "We are being accurate, but we will respect the court ruling," they stated, signaling a willingness to temper their rhetoric while maintaining their factual assertions. The exchange highlights the delicate balance the court is trying to strike between a vigorous prosecution and a fair trial.

Day 19 in the Courtroom: Hostile Witness Grilling

The day's proceedings were not solely focused on the sub judice ruling. The court also heard testimony from OVP Assistant Secretary Lemuel Ortonio, the prosecution's second hostile witness. Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo subjected Ortonio to intense questioning, particularly regarding the P122 million in OVP confidential funds used to buy medicines as rewards for informants. Tulfo slammed the witness for not asking how the money was spent, stating, "It defies logic."

Ortonio defended his actions, saying he trusted what former Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group (VPSPG) chief Colonel Raymund Lachica told him. The testimony revealed that Lachica was designated, not employed, at the OVP, holding an order from the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) designating him as VPSPG group commander. Per a Commission on Audit (COA) circular, this designation means Lachica is not an accountable officer of the OVP, a detail that adds complexity to the question of who is responsible for the funds.

The prosecution also highlighted what it called a "misdeclaration," as Ortonio admitted that money was given instead of the declared medicine purchases. Representative Ortega drew a colorful comparison, likening the handling of OVP confidential funds to a "salisi gang" — a gang that works in shifts to steal — and calling it a "chichirya gang" pattern in the use of the funds. The vivid language underscored the prosecution's narrative of systematic misappropriation, even as the court reminded them to keep their arguments grounded in evidence.

What Comes Next (September 1)

The court adjourned on Wednesday until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, September 1, with a full slate of witnesses scheduled for the first two days of the resumption. Colonel Manaros M. Boransing II, Colonel Magtangol Panopio, Atty. Michael Wesley Poa, and PSA Assistant National Statistician Marizza Grande are all set to take the stand. The prosecution is also seeking subpoenas for Poa and Grande, while dropping the presentation of retired Major General Adonis Bajao.

Court spokesman Reginald Tongol noted that the trial has been delayed by about two to three days due to the recent typhoon that battered the country. The court is now studying possible changes to the trial schedule to make up for the lost time, a logistical challenge that adds another layer of complexity to an already historic and contentious proceeding.

As the trial resumes in September, the central question remains whether the prosecution can prove its case on Article 1 — the alleged misuse and misappropriation of P125 million in confidential funds — with hard evidence. For ordinary Filipinos watching from their homes in Manila, Quezon City, and across the archipelago, this trial is not just about one official; it is a test of whether the nation's institutions can hold its highest leaders accountable under the rule of law. The court's firm stance on the sub judice rule suggests that the proceedings will be conducted with a focus on evidence, not spectacle, in the weeks ahead.

By Bella Reyes, Staff Writer

This article was produced with AI-assisted research and editorial support. Reporting is based on sources cited in the article.