Terms like “scam” and “mastermind” have no place in the direct and cross-examinations of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, the Senate impeachment court told House prosecutors on Tuesday.
Presiding Officer and Senator-judge Francis “Chiz” Escudero laid down the caution after defense counsel Atty. Kristine Ferrer raised a manifestation asking the court to rein in the prosecution’s word choices. Ferrer named “scam, mastermind, nagsisinungaling” among the phrasing she considered out of bounds, arguing that the venue demanded restraint.
“This is a solemn proceeding, this is a court of law, this is a court of procedure and actually a court of decorum. We are not supposed to make insinuations, accusations or conclusions your honor, so we request the court to kindly remind the prosecution,” she said.
The dispute grew out of private prosecutor Atty. Mae Divinagracia’s questioning of Office of the Vice President (OVP) Assistant Chief of Staff Lemuel Ortonio. After Ortonio acknowledged that the OVP had turned in four different explanations to the Commission on Audit over its confidential fund spending, Divinagracia framed the shifting accounts as possible dishonesty.
“In short, you will also agree with me na kapag paiba-iba ang rason, maaaring nagsisinungaling lang or talaga namang ito ay isa lamang scam?” she asked.
Her line of questioning later turned to Duterte’s personal role. Ortonio had confirmed that the Vice President requested the funds and directed their release, encashment, use, and liquidation—prompting Divinagracia to press him on whether Duterte engineered the entire arrangement.
“In short you will agree with me that this whole confidential funds matter, ang arkitekto at mastermind nito ay si Sara Duterte,” she said.
Ferrer objected to each question and moved to have both struck, and Escudero granted the motions. He offered the prosecution alternative phrasing, suggesting they characterize the matter as something approved or carried out with Duterte’s knowledge rather than reaching for stronger labels.
“I will have to strike, kindly replace it with words that are more acceptable such as: ‘that everything was approved by, or with the consent or the full knowledge of’ it’s up to you,” he said.
Escudero noted the reminder was familiar territory, observing that the prosecution had leaned on forceful closing statements before.
“It does seem that it’s becoming a… I would rather use the word habit, than pattern…for the panel of prosecutors to close their direct with such strong statements,” he said.
Divinagracia accepted the correction, attributing the language to the drive behind the prosecution’s work.
“We apologize, sometimes we get carried away by our zeal and our passion but to me and the prosecution, we just want to wall a spade a spade,” she said. “But henceforth, to borrow the words of my colleague we will try to behave.”
Senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano backed Escudero’s position, warning that such terminology risked damaging the standing of both the court and whatever ruling it eventually hands down.
