Trial of rare discourse
Livestreamed for public viewing, the trial sometimes turns into a display in which the principles of law seem to be overshadowed by dramatics.
Text size
Livestreamed for public viewing, the trial sometimes turns into a display in which the principles of law seem to be overshadowed by dramatics.
The Senate impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte continues to vividly reflect our political climate not only in the legislative proceedings but also in the theatrical antics of everyone involved — the prosecution, the defense and the senator-judges.
Livestreamed for public viewing, the trial sometimes turns into a display in which the principles of law seem to be overshadowed by dramatics. The courtroom is traditionally a bastion of serious discourse, but since the trial is political, it has come to resemble a reality TV show. Opposing lawyers are more like entertainers competing for the audience’s silent applause.
Prosecution lawyer Amando Virgil Ligutan once attempted to take on additional roles by using social media to explain his decisions. While his identity as a teacher is commendable, it raises questions about his professionalism. Does providing such commentary detract from the seriousness of the trial? Attorney Ligutan should focus on one role: that of a prosecutor.
The verbal tussles between the prosecution and defense teams have not merely been legal arguments; they have evolved into a battle of wits and insults which sometimes blur the line between courtroom decorum and public spectacle. Just leave the social media commentary to us spectators.
On the flip side, both opposing sides have tried to challenge the trial’s complexities, often packing more flair than substance. The insistence on cutting off witnesses for “yes or no” answers is a strategy that belies a deeper issue: a growing trend of legal practitioners prioritizing persuasive theatrics over rigorous argumentation. Rather than engaging with the evidence and legal standards, there is often a retreat into a reflexive struggle for control over the narrative, which does not always promote justice or truth.
The real worry here lies in the legal system’s implications for public perception. When legal representatives behave as if they are on a game show, the weight of their arguments and the integrity of the judicial process begin to lose their meaning. Add Attorney Lorna Kapunan wanting to spank a defense counsel, and a senator-judge calling a witness “stupid.”
A fair and impartial trial can swiftly fall prey to the shifting tides of public opinion shaped by the very spectacle these lawyers create.
Presiding Officer Senator Francis Escudero has attempted to rein in these antics by reminding the lawyers of their responsibilities — not just as legal representatives but as professionals bound by ethical standards.
Television or a livestream is a harsh medium that captures every detail, turning lawyers into instant public heroes or villains. The proceedings should reflect the message they are truly conveying. When the courtroom is treated like a stage, where every objection and rebuttal is designed for maximum impact, the trust in the legal system begins to erode.
It’s not too late to return to decorum, where genuine legal discourse prevails over theatrics, and where the pursuit of justice takes precedence over the quest for fleeting fame.
