Senate Impeachment Court Presiding Officer Francis Joseph ‘Chiz’ Escudero speaks during trial proceedings on August 26, 2026. (Courtesy: Senate of the Philippines)
Senate Impeachment Court Presiding Officer Francis Escudero on Wednesday ordered the strict enforcement of Rule 18 of the Senate Rules of Impeachment, or the sub judice rule, barring parties involved in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial from publicly commenting on the merits of the case.
Escudero also specifically reminded Duterte to observe the new ruling after the prosecution said the Vice President had issued a public statement earlier in the day condemning the name-calling directed at her during the impeachment trial.
Escudero said the court would not penalize previous violations, instead effectively wiping the slate clean for those involved.
“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,” Escudero said.
“You know who you are. We know who you are,” he added.
Guidelines for ‘two-strike’ rule
Escudero said the impeachment court would issue corresponding guidelines for implementing Rule 18.
Under the rule, a first violation carries a public reprimand and stern admonition in open court, which becomes part of the permanent record as a final warning. A second violation carries a P30,000 fine, with the same fine imposed for succeeding violations.
The court may also restrict offending lawyers or parties from speaking, raising objections, or examining witnesses during the proceedings.
Certified records of violations must be forwarded to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Supreme Court for appropriate action and oversight.
Court applies decision ‘prospectively’
In a statement, Duterte said the accusations against her should be proven with evidence rather than insults, speculation, or political theatrics.
Escudero said the statement was made while he was delivering his ruling, so the court’s decision would apply prospectively.
“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 Article or Rule 18 on the subject matter, in regard to making comments on the merits of the case,” Escudero said.
Members of the defense team at the impeachment trial on August 26, 2026. (Courtesy: Senate of the Philippines)
Defense lead counsel Sheila Sison took note of the reminder.
House lead prosecutor Rep. Gerville Luistro attempted to read part of Duterte’s statement into the record, but Escudero stopped her, saying it would amount to commenting on the merits of the case.
‘Rule applies to all parties’
Rule 18 prohibits the presiding officer, senator-judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, the person impeached, and their respective witnesses from making public comments or disclosures concerning the merits of a pending impeachment trial.
Escudero said the rule applies to all parties and reminded senator-judges to maintain their impartiality throughout the proceedings.
“A judge must not only be impartial, but must also appear to be impartial,” Escudero said, stressing the principles of “cold neutrality,” political neutrality and impartial justice.
He clarified that impartiality does not prevent senator-judges from examining evidence or asking questions. Questions, he said, should be intended to clarify the truth fairly rather than harass witnesses or suggest a predetermined conclusion.
Prosecution to comply, stresses accuracy
Luistro said the prosecution respected the impeachment court’s authority and would comply with its direction on courtroom language.
The Batangas lawmaker was responding to concerns over prosecution counsel Mae Divinagracia’s use of strong terms such as “scam,” “mastermind,” and “lying” during her direct examination of Office of the Vice President Assistant Secretary Lemuel Ortonio.
“First of all, we respect and abide by the impeachment court,” Luistro said.
She said prosecutors must also communicate accurately because they represent the Filipino people, particularly when presenting testimony involving public funds, audit findings, and possible irregularities in the use of confidential funds.
“When we say ‘accurate,’ the words you use must precisely match what you intend to convey, or refer exactly to the events that constitute the subject matter of the witness’s testimony,” Luistro said.
She added that the prosecution would remain mindful of its choice of words while ensuring the evidence and testimony were presented clearly.
Ligutan post questioned
The ruling came after the court considered a Facebook post by House prosecution counsel Amando Virgil Ligutan, who maintained that his post about misleading questions did not violate the sub judice rule because it merely clarified a procedural rule and did not discuss the merits or evidence of the case.
House prosecution counsel Amando Ligutan delivers a statement at the impeachment trial on August 26, 2026. (Courtesy: Senate of the Philippines)
“But what did I violate? I did not discuss the merits of the case. I did not discuss the strength or weakness of the legal arguments or evidence of either side,” Ligutan told the court.
The controversy stemmed from an Aug. 12 exchange between prosecution counsel Lorna Kapunan and defense counsel Kristine Ferrer during the cross-examination of Commission on Audit auditor Xylene Mae Del Campo.
Kapunan said misleading questions were not allowed during cross-examination, prompting Ferrer to respond, “They are allowed.”
Ligutan subsequently posted on Facebook that misleading questions were not allowed even on cross-examination.
He said the post was not directed at any particular defense lawyer and was made because he was concerned that what he considered an erroneous statement on courtroom procedure would go unchecked.
“I am a lawyer, but more than just a lawyer, first and foremost, I am a teacher,” Ligutan said.
“My teacher’s instinct kicked in,” he added, explaining that he believed correcting the procedural point was part of his responsibility as an educator.
Escudero reminded Ligutan that his role as an educator did not remove his responsibilities as counsel appearing before the impeachment court.
‘Misleading’ exchange clarified
The presiding officer also clarified the exchange that prompted the post. Based on the transcript, Escudero said Kapunan initially referred to “leading” questions before correcting herself to “misleading,” while Ferrer responded that “they are allowed.”
He said the transcript could not fully capture overlapping voices and raised the possibility that Ferrer was responding to the reference to leading questions.
The defense had earlier raised concerns over Ligutan’s post, while the prosecution had urged Escudero to enforce Rule 18 following public statements involving the proceedings, including a post by Senator-Judge Pia Cayetano featuring a spliced video of her exchange with House prosecutor Chel Diokno.
Escudero had also previously advised the prosecution and defense to consider designating spokespersons who were not members of their respective legal teams.