Courtroom clash
Political theater had never been quite as alive as today, where senators clash without restraint and insults fly as quickly as tantrums ignite.
Text size
Political theater had never been quite as alive as today, where senators clash without restraint and insults fly as quickly as tantrums ignite.
There are many things one expects to hear inside an impeachment court: objections, rebuttals, evidence and the occasional raised voice. “Respect,” however, should not have needed reminding.
Until now, the exchange of words between Atty. Lorna Kapunan of the prosecution team and defense counsel Kristine Ferrer on Day 15 of the Sara Duterte impeachment hearing is still being discussed. Some still ask: What, indeed, does “leading” and “misleading” mean in court? What is allowed or not allowed during cross-examination? Who was actually right in that little skirmish?
The argument became tense over objections, the questioning of Commission on Audit (COA) witness Xylene Mae del Campo, and documents being presented by the defense. Presiding officer Francis Escudero found it necessary to defuse the situation, advising both lawyers to temper their words and noting their apparent “generational divide.”
But the spectacle, peppered with juicy one-liners, was too hard to resist, let alone ignore. Social media came ablaze with the quotes and the funny strips. The lawyers became the story, and the audience briefly seemed to forget that it was supposed to be about the evidence.
Yet “spanking” and “lecturing” were not only strange words to hear in an impeachment court; they seemed to overshadow the language that should matter most in a trial: evidence, facts and accountability.
“Respect” became the word of the day when both sides invoked professional respect. Ferrer urged Kapunan to respect fellow lawyers and criticized side comments, while the latter expressed frustration with Ferrer’s manner of questioning.
What does respectful disagreement look like when the stakes are as high as the removal of a vice president? We have already seen many dramas unfold in the Senate and impeachment court. Political theater had never been quite as alive as today, where senators clash without restraint and insults fly as quickly as tantrums ignite.
A calm and collected Atty. Chel Diokno, for example, became the foil that revealed his verbal opponent’s lack of expertise (and grace). A sharp and seasoned Atty. Kapunan had the defense counsel almost “losing it,” as reports described.
Suddenly, for the audience, it’s been Kapunan vs. Ferrer, and before that there was Alan Peter this, Robin that, Chel this, Pia that ... and what about Sara D? She thinks Congress is “bending the law,” mocking the impeachment court in the process.
People now talk about people and the entertainment their words and actions bring. Only a few bother to keep the conversation focused on the issue itself. Unfortunately, in the midst of endless spectacle, the evidence risks becoming the sideshow.
Of course, personalities will matter in an impeachment trial. Lawyers are advocates, after all, and advocacy requires force. But force need not mean fury, and disagreement need not become disrespect. The public deserves vigorous argument — but it also deserves to hear the evidence clearly enough to make up its own mind.
Are we becoming more interested in the personalities surrounding an issue than in the issue itself?
