Manila Rep. Bienvenido “Benny” Abante challenged Vice President Sara Duterte to appear before the Senate impeachment court instead of discussing her case publicly amid concerns from her camp over restrictions imposed by the sub judice rule.

Abante claimed Duterte’s camp was complaining about the ruling because its members were among those whose public statements prompted Senate President and impeachment court presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero to act.

“They are guilty of sub judice…in fact, they have a mechanism on that. They don’t even need to speak because they have many trolls. They have many people that bash and say the things they want to say,” Abante said in an online interview.

The lawmaker stressed that Duterte should face the constitutional process, saying her appearance before the impeachment court would give her the opportunity to answer the allegations against her.

He clarified that the prosecution was not presuming Duterte guilty of the accusations contained in the Articles of Impeachment.

“She’s being given the opportunity, we’re not saying she’s really guilty, right? We’re not. What we’re saying is she should now appear before the impeachment court,” Abante said.

Rather than making statements through the media or other platforms, Abante said Duterte should present her side before the impeachment court, where the allegations and her defense could be properly examined.

“She should not insult the impeachment court. Just appear rather than talking to the media, saying things that if included in the sub judice rule, then she should be accountable,” he added.

On Wednesday, 26 August, Escudero formally ruled on issues involving public statements by both the prosecution and defense that could violate Rule 18 of the Senate Rules on Impeachment.

The rule prohibits participating parties from publicly discussing matters that delve into the merits of the case.

After citing previous public statements from both sides, Escudero said the impeachment court would observe a “clean slate” in implementing penalties for violations.

Under the ruling, a first offense would result in a formal order requiring the lawyer concerned to explain the statement. A subsequent violation would carry a P30,000 fine and additional restrictions on the lawyer’s participation in the trial.

Both the prosecution and defense have expressed respect for the ruling but sought greater leeway for public discourse surrounding the proceedings.

Duterte herself received a warning on the same day the ruling was issued after Escudero flagged a statement she posted on social media during the trial.