In the days since, that brief exchange has taken on a life of its own. Lawyers, law students, and apparently anyone who has ever opened the Rules of Court were quick to point out the obvious.
Misleading questions are most definitely not allowed.
Rule 132 could hardly be clearer. A misleading question is one that assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or something contrary to what the witness has already stated. The rule then adds four wonderfully uncomplicated words: “It is not allowed.”
Leading questions are different. Those generally suggest the answer desired by the examiner and, yes, they are allowed on cross-examination.
Perhaps Ferrer simply misheard Kapunan. That would be the generous explanation. The defense team has since offered something along those lines, insisting that Ferrer was really responding to a different point about yes-or-no questions and meant only that leading questions are permitted on cross. Maybe.
But the more important point is not whether one lawyer momentarily confused “leading” with “misleading,” or whether this was simply a badly timed misunderstanding. Lawyers make mistakes. All of us do. The problem is that this happened against the backdrop of a growing public frustration with the defense itself.
Since the trial began, we have watched a procession of defense lawyers badgering witnesses, pursuing long and seemingly pointless lines of cross-examination, and raising objection after objection over matters that often appear trivial to everyone outside the courtroom.
At times, the proceedings have slowed to the pace of traffic on EDSA during a thunderstorm. Ferrer simply became the latest face of this growing frustration.
It has gotten so bad that some have even suggested that making the trial tedious enough for people to stop watching may itself be a strategy. I have no idea if that is true. But if it is, congratulations. A recent survey found that only 12 percent of Filipinos were closely following the proceedings.
Still, it would be unfair to put all the blame on the defense. Their job is to defend their client, and within legal limits they are expected to use every available advantage.
The greater responsibility belongs to the Senate impeachment court.
It is the court, particularly its presiding officer, that must keep the proceedings focused, control pointless repetition, stop improper questioning, and prevent legitimate advocacy from degenerating into delay and distraction. Because this trial is already difficult enough for ordinary Filipinos to follow.
They should not have to wade through hours of lawyerly sparring simply to find out what the real story is behind the serious allegations against the Vice President.
The objective, lest we forget, is to arrive at the truth. And no, misleading people is not allowed.
