A House prosecutor’s ally pushed back Wednesday, August 12, against Vice President Sara Duterte’s legal team, urging the Senate impeachment court to disregard their objection to a social media post written by one of the prosecutors during that day’s proceedings.
Speaking to reporters after the hearing wrapped up, Bicol Saro Party-list Rep. Terry Ridon poked fun at the defense panel’s grievance. “Ramdam ko yung pag-iyak, ramdam ko yung pighati, ramdam ko yung hinagpis ng depensa dito po sa pag-reklamo nila,” he said.
Ridon boiled the dispute down to two considerations he said the complaint failed to meet. “Dalawa lang po yung tanong: Ito po ba ay may pinangalanan? Pangalawa, is it based on the merits? I don’t think so. Kasi po yung sub judice rule po ang pinag-uusapan po dito, talking about the merits of the case,” he said.
He argued the post authored by prosecutor Amando Virgil Ligutan, a Cebu-based private practitioner brought in by the House prosecution panel, did nothing to breach restrictions on public commentary about pending cases. As Ridon put it, Ligutan “was basically stating a principle of law on misleading questions.”
The lawmaker maintained the objection had no place in the proceedings. “So, kung naiyak ho ang depensa, kawawa naman sila, hindi ho ba? But it is not within the sub judice rule. So, I think it is out of place,” he said, adding that Escudero “dapat itabi” such complaints.
The controversy traces back to the closing moments of the hearing, when lead defense counsel Sheila Sison raised a manifestation targeting Ligutan’s earlier post. She tied her objection to matters of propriety and courtroom decorum among counsel, casting the post as a jab at defense lawyer Kristine Ferrer, who was conducting her cross-examination at the time.
Senator-judge Francis “Chiz” Escudero, who presides over the court, said he intends to rule on Sison’s manifestation Monday, August 17.
For Ridon, the larger stake is public comprehension of a trial he described as unfolding by the day, hour, and week. He said Filipinos deserve to grasp why each piece of evidence carries weight, and that lawyers on both sides help fill that gap once they step outside the chamber. “Because we do not want a trial that is divorced from the understanding of the public,” he said.
