House prosecutor and Akbayan Party-list Representative Chel Diokno pressed for the strict and equal application of Rule 18 under the Impeachment Rules, which bans involved parties from discussing the merits of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial in public.
Diokno emphasized that the sub judice regulation explicitly directs the Senate presiding officer, senator-judges, prosecutors, the accused official, defense counsel, and witnesses to refrain from public comments or disclosures regarding the trial’s merits. He noted that the standard is backed by established judicial rules.
“Well, para sa akin po ay walang silbi ang rules kung hindi naman siya mag-a-apply sa lahat, lalo na yung mga na directly involved sa case. Even if it is not under the impeachment rules, it’s already covered by the Rules of Court,” Diokno expressed during a radio interview.
His statement followed a public response issued by the Vice President while Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero, serving as presiding officer, formally admonished all parties to adhere to the sub judice rule or face a ₱30,000 penalty per infraction alongside other potential sanctions.
“A strong case does not need the adornment of theatrics. A senator calling a witness ‘stupid,’ a lawyer calling me the ‘mastermind of a scam’ or another witness referring to me as a ‘brat’ does not prove a case, nor does it produce evidence,” Duterte stated.
Diokno elaborated on how public and courtroom conduct are governed by contempt rules, distinguishing between behavior inside and outside the trial setting.
“You will be cited in direct contempt if you showed improper decorum or violated Rules of Court inside the courtroom, but if you are outside the court and you made a statement or wrote a column intended to influence the outcome of the case, that is indirect contempt,” he noted.
However, the lawmaker clarified that public discussion does not automatically trigger disciplinary action.
“The ruling of the impeachment court and a Supreme Court ruling on that matter are similar. It is covered under freedom of speech as long as there is no clear and present danger to the administration of justice,” Diokno added.