Chiz to issue warning on public comments of impeachment lawyers — ABS-CBN News

[0:00] However, the more important manifestation that I would like to make today, Your Honor, [0:06] is in relation to a social media post that I happen to see. [0:12] And this was posted at 11.29 a.m. by one of the private prosecutors, [0:19] attorney Amanda Virgil de Gutan, posting that a principal, [0:24] all lawyers and law students know by heart, [0:27] misleading questions are not allowed even in cross-examination. [0:30] Now, this was posted and picked up by Inquire.net at 11.29 a.m. today. [0:38] And I surmise that this has something to do with the exchange [0:42] between the private prosecutor, attorney Kapunan, [0:48] and the defense counsel, attorney Ferrer, [0:50] on the matter of the cross-examination question [0:55] that attorney Ferrer asked the prosecution's witness. [0:59] And I have here a transcript because I find it troubling that a private prosecutor would do this [1:08] in the middle of a courtroom hearing. [1:12] Because as far as I'm concerned, impeachment court is also a court of decorum. [1:19] And the rules on impeachment under Rule 18 actually prohibits participants, [1:25] especially lawyers, from commenting about the merits of the case. [1:29] Now, one may argue that this isn't about the merits of the case, [1:33] that he probably was just commenting about what ought or ought not to do in a cross-examination. [1:39] But we, you know, we're not naive. [1:42] What the private prosecutor is talking about is here. [1:45] He can explain it. [1:45] He can explain himself if the presiding officer so desires. [1:49] But I really just find it in bad taste to do this at this time. [1:55] And I think it is inappropriate to do that to a fellow member of the bar [1:58] because even as we sit on the opposing side of this hall, [2:04] we remain to be both members of the bar. [2:08] And as officers of the court, we owe each other respect, you know, politeness, or even kindness. [2:16] And it doesn't take one to be a lawyer to know that the first thing [2:21] that our parents teach us to do is humility. [2:26] Your Honor? [2:26] No, I'm not yet done, Your Honor. [2:30] In fact, I have asked one of our lawyers to review the actual transcript from the video [2:39] that transpired between the prosecutor and attorney Ferrer. [2:48] And it would seem that in the heat of the exchange, [2:51] or in the passionate exchange of the arguments between the prosecutor and attorney Ferrer, [2:56] attorney Ferrer was not even actually referring to misleading questions as allowed, [3:06] as implied in the social media posts of attorney Ligutan. [3:13] In fact, it's here. [3:15] The court can confirm this from a replay of the video. [3:19] Attorney Ferrer, sinabi ho ba yan sa J.C. na dapat may mahuli? [3:23] The witness answers, ang nakalagay po kasi sa J.C. under 4.8.2 ay proof of success. [3:30] Attorney Ferrer, hindi. [3:31] Sorry, Your Honor, please. [3:32] Attorney Capuna, let the witness answer, Your Honor. [3:36] Mr. Presiding Officer, can the council be instructed not to stop the witness mid-sentence, Your Honor? [3:41] Attorney Ferrer, Your Honor, please. [3:43] Can the witness be directed to just answer with yes or no? [3:47] The council has her time to ask clarificatory questions later during redirect, Your Honor. [3:52] And attorney Capuna, not all questions, not all questions can be answered by yes or no. [3:57] This is the myth of the contention of the argument between attorney Capuna and attorney Ferrer. [4:03] Attorney Ferrer responded, I am on cross, Your Honor, please. [4:07] And the presiding officer said, councils. [4:09] Attorney Capuna responded, never mind if you are on cross, Your Honor. [4:14] There are limits to cross-examination. [4:16] Misleading questions are not allowed on cross. [4:18] This was the first time that the matter on misleading questions was actually raised by attorney Capuna. [4:23] And attorney Ferrer, for some reason, said they are allowed, [4:27] but she was pertaining to the fact that the questions to which a yes or no answer may be answerable are allowed. [4:37] She's not referring to misleading questions. [4:39] I mean, you know, for, in effect, attorney Ferrer was only saying that leading questions are allowed on cross-examination, [4:50] so are not misleading questions. [4:51] And yet we have a private prosecutor immediately taking to social media and posting this, [4:58] implying something against the defense counsel. [5:01] We will not have this. [5:01] Your Honor, in the interest of fair play, may I request that counsel for the panel of prosecutors, [5:10] attorney Vergili Gooden, be recognized, Your Honor. [5:12] Unfortunately, counsel, no, the presiding officer will not allow that at this time. [5:17] The presiding officer takes in advisement the manifestation of the lead counsel for the respondent, [5:24] because, quite frankly, Honorable Luistro, I asked the clerk of court to monitor the public statements of the councils of the parties this past week. [5:37] And one side has been crossing the line many, many times. [5:42] And, in fact, the presiding officer is already in the process of drafting a ruling and a warning and an order pertaining to this. [5:54] Because, clearly, I can even name all of you who have been commenting on social media in violation of Rule 18 of the impeachment rules. [6:03] But I will do that on Monday, perhaps, after taking advisement, the manifestation of the council for respondent. [6:12] It's not really so much being cordial or nice or kind, but it's a basic violation of Rule 18. [6:21] I already talked to the parties two weeks ago, reminding you that you might want to consider appointing spokespersons [6:30] who are not part of the panel of prosecutors nor a private prosecutor, but you insist on maintaining that. [6:39] So, after two weeks, the court is constrained to make a decision and ruling on that. [6:44] But we will do that on Monday with the permission of both councils. [6:48] Then we will hear you, counsel, and we will hear Attorney Ligutan prior to the court's ruling on the matter. [6:55] But we advise that, again, we have it all on tape. [6:59] We have been monitoring everything. [7:02] We may not enumerate it one by one, but we will make the corresponding ruling on Monday. [7:06] Thank you for bringing that up, counsel. [7:08] It gives me a reason to actually issue the ruling which we have prepared and have been preparing the past few days. [7:16] On Monday, Attorney Ligutan, we will hear you before we make the ruling. [7:18] Thank you.