MANILA, Philippines, During the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, private prosecutor Amando Virgil Ligutan’s Facebook post sparked controversy among legal professionals and the prosecution team. According to prosecutors, Ligutan’s statement, posted on social media, was meant to clarify a fundamental legal principle regarding cross-examinations. However, the post was interpreted by Duterte’s legal team as a response to a disagreement between defense counsel Kristine Ferrer and prosecution counsel Lorna Kapunan during the trial. Ligutan, who serves as one of the key prosecutors in the case, shared a message on Facebook stating that “misleading questions are not allowed even on cross-examination.” This assertion was believed by Duterte’s lawyers to be a reaction to an exchange between Ferrer and Kapunan. During the trial, Kapunan had objected to Ferrer’s method of conducting cross-examinations, arguing that certain types of questions were not permissible under evidentiary rules. Ferrer, in turn, countered that such questions were allowed, leading to a heated debate that prompted Ligutan to share his clarification online. Prosecution legal spokesperson Benjamin Tolosa Jr., addressing the situation in a press briefing following the trial, noted that Ligutan’s post might have stemmed from his identity as a law professor. Tolosa emphasized that many law students and aspiring lawyers follow the proceedings closely, especially on social media. He suggested that Ligutan’s post was intended as a reminder rather than a critique of the trial itself. “He just wanted to make sure, remind everyone, this is a basic evidentiary rule,” Tolosa explained. Tolosa further clarified that while social media posts criticizing the trial are generally acceptable, attacks on the court’s integrity are not. He distinguished between reasonable criticism and baseless accusations, noting that both are part of the legal discourse but must remain within ethical boundaries. “Reasonable criticisms are allowed, but baseless attacks against the credibility of the institution itself are not allowed,” Tolosa said. The defense team, led by counsel Sheila Sison, challenged the interpretation of Ligutan’s post. Sison argued that the post did not directly address the specific dispute between Ferrer and Kapunan. Instead, she pointed out that Ligutan had referenced an exchange involving Ferrer and Kapunan, suggesting that the post could be seen as an indirect rebuke. Sison noted that Ligutan had not named individuals specifically, which she viewed as an attempt to avoid accountability. The tension between Ferrer and Kapunan had already escalated during the trial. On August 12, Ferrer was tasked with cross-examining state auditor Xylene Mae del Campo. During the session, Kapunan objected to Ferrer’s approach, which included interrupting the witness and asking questions that required more than simple yes-or-no answers. Ferrer defended her methods, asserting that she had the right to conduct the cross-examination as she saw fit. Their exchange became a focal point of the trial, drawing attention from both the bench and the public. Following the incident, Kapunan made a remark during a break, expressing frustration with Ferrer’s conduct. She reportedly said, “All my children are boys. I’m used to disrespectful people. But, I raised my children to be respectful. I hope she [Kristine] is too.” The comment, though informal, underscored the growing tensions between the two legal teams. Despite the friction, defense spokesperson Michael Poa maintained that Ferrer had no intent to disrespect anyone. He described her as a passionate advocate who sometimes expressed herself strongly, but whose intentions were always professional. “I’m sure there was no intention to disrespect anyone, be it opposing counsel, the witness, and of course the honorable court,” Poa said. As the trial continued, the use of AI in presenting evidence also drew scrutiny. Prosecution counsel Ligutan had introduced an AI-generated simulation to illustrate the P125-million confidential funds allegedly misused by Duterte. The defense raised concerns about the accuracy of the visual representation, noting that the witness, Gina Acosta, struggled with Tagalog during the trial, unlike her testimony before the House committee. Despite these objections, the prosecution stood by its use of the technology, citing the lack of physical evidence. The ongoing developments in the trial highlight the complex interplay between legal procedures, public perception, and the personal dynamics of the courtroom. As the proceedings unfold, the balance between rigorous legal standards and the human elements of advocacy will continue to shape the narrative.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.
Become a Supporter
PH
