LIST: Statements that allegedly violated Rule 18 of Impeachment Rules

Senate impeachment court presiding officer Francis Escudero on Monday issued a directive barring senator-judges, as well as counsels for both the prosecution and defense, from speaking publicly on the merits of the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte.

He cited Rule 18 of the Senate Impeachment Rules which says: “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.”

Escudero said violators of Rule 18 will face a severe public reprimand and stern admonition in open court for a first offense, which will be permanently recorded as a final warning.

For second and subsequent offenses, violators will be fined P30,000 per violation and may face restrictions on their participation in the trial, including limitations on their right to speak, object or examine witnesses.

Lawyers who violate the rule may also face disciplinary action, with the records potentially referred to the Supreme Court or the Office of the Bar Confidant for review under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).

Escudero cited several examples of utterances by parties that supposedly violate the rule, even as he clarified that these would no longer be penalized.

"In fact, the Chair has in his hands certain statements to cite as examples without naming names. But you know who you are, who mentioned these quotes," he said during the 19th day of the impeachment trial against Duterte.

"Let it be clear: the citation of these statements is not intended to accuse, adjudge, or punish any person. It is meant only to illustrate the kind of public commentary that Rule 18 forbids and to provide fair notice of the standard that this Court shall henceforth strictly enforce," he added.

Here are the statements Escudero cited as alleged violations of Rule 18:

• "Hindi naman pinag-uusapan dito yung kontrata. Ang pinag-uusapan dito yung banta, yung banta. Nakita niyo sa video, may nagbanta talaga at si Vice President 'yun, hindi ba?"

(The contract isn't what's being discussed here. What's being discussed here is the threat—the threat. You saw it in the video, someone actually made a threat, and that was the Vice President, wasn't it?)

• "The country witnessed what I've been saying all along. The complaint is not supported by evidence. An impeachment proceeding should be grounded on credible evidence, not speculation, manufactured narratives, or unsupported allegations. The rule of law depends on facts, not fiction."
  
• "Mayroon ba talagang kinausap na mamamatay tao? Mayroon ba talagang mamamatay tao? Napakaliwanag na ng sagot diyan: meron. Ano ho ang pruweba natin? Yung tinatawag na admission against interest ng vice president."

(Is an assassin really spoken to? Is there really an assassin? The answer to that is crystal clear: there is. What is our proof? The vice president's so-called admission against interest.)

• "Since na-establish na naming yung hinahanap namin doon sa tatlong testigo lamang, finorego na namin yung ibang mga testigo. Na-establish na namin ang gusto namin i-establish sa Article 4."

(Since we have already established what we were looking for using just those three witnesses, we forewent the other witnesses. We have already established what we wanted to establish in Article 4.)

• "Itong mga bank records don't lie. Hindi na ito pwedeng ma-spin. Yan at sabihin gawa-gawa lang ng prosekusyon ng gobyerno itong mga usapin ng unexplained wealth ng vice president."

(These bank records don't lie. This can no longer be spun to say that these issues regarding the vice president's unexplained wealth were merely fabricated by the government prosecution.)

• "It is clear the vice president had a direct hand on this. She signed off it. No, not just the use but the way it was liquidated."
  
• "Yun pong binabanggit ni Attorney Kapunan na scam, yun pa rin ho 'yun. Pag tingin ho namin na inilantad ngayong araw na po ito, yung pagiging scam, iskandalo nitong confidential fund misuse."

(What Attorney Kapunan is referring to as a scam—it's still that exact same thing. We believe that today, the scam and the scandal surrounding this misuse of confidential funds were fully exposed.)

• "Malinaw din na sinasabi niya na hindi kailangan sabihin pa na ginamit ito para sa personal na paggamit ng vice president itong confidential funds na ito. Dahil sabi nga niya, nakalagay na ito sa joint circular."

(It is also clear she is saying there's no need to explicitly state that these confidential funds were used for the vice president's personal gain. Because as she mentioned, this is already outlined in the joint circular.)

• "Siguro naman explain for everybody to see yung conclusion noh? Yung conclusion na tama ba yung pinaggamitan ng confidential fund. Hanggang kailan ba yung pagpipikit mata natin sa isang bagay na klaro naman."

(Perhaps the conclusion should be explained for everyone to see, right? The conclusion on whether the confidential fund was used properly. How much longer are we going to turn a blind eye to something that is already so clear?)

• "To be fair, let's wait for their defense if they any, or their evidence. But so far as we are concerned, our position: you violated the public trust. Fraudulent liquidation, so you have violated the law. You already betrayed the people's trust."
  
• "Sa totoo lang po, yung testimonya ni Ms. Acosta na nagsasabing si Pangalawang Pangulong Duterte mismo ang nagbigay ng utos na ibigay ang P125 kay Colonel Lachica. Sapat na po yun doon sa pagpapakita ng maling paggamit ng confidential fund."

(Honestly, Ms. Acosta's testimony stating that Vice President Duterte herself gave the order to give the P125 million to Colonel Lachica is already enough to prove the misuse of the confidential fund.)

• "To us, it's a scam, a scam that was masterminded by the vice president."

On Aug. 12, Duterte's lead counsel Sheila Sison called out a social media post by private prosecutor Amando Virgil Ligutan criticizing the supposed “misleading” questions posed counsels during the impeachment trial.

This came after an exchange between private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan and defense lawyer Kristine Ferrer, during which the latter appeared to argue that misleading questions were allowed during cross-examination.

Ligutan's Facebook post read: “A principle all lawyers and law students know by heart: Misleading questions are not allowed even on cross-examination.”

Sison said the post was “in bad taste” and inappropriate, particularly because it was directed at a fellow member of the Bar.

Escudero noted that such statements would not have been a problem if they had been made by third-party observers.

"If this was stated by a spokesperson or any third party observer, it would not have been a problem. But this was stated by a counsel of record, actually, more specifically, one of the counsels for the private prosecutors," he said.— MCG, GMA News