Prosecutors question fairness of 'sub judice rule’ application

Lawyers from the House prosecution panel on Tuesday questioned what they described as an uneven application of the Senate impeachment court’s sub judice rule, arguing that Vice President Sara Duterte should be held to the same standard imposed on prosecutors and other parties in her impeachment trial.

Private prosecutor Benjamin Tolosa, one of two prosecutors ordered by the impeachment court to explain alleged violations of the rule, raised concerns over the court’s response to public statements made by Duterte.

“There’s only one rule here, one court. Our ask here is for the rule to be applied evenly, with an even hand regardless of who will be affected by it. As long as you are included in the scope, it should be affected,” Tolosa said.

Tolosa noted that the impeachment court initiated proceedings motu proprio, or on its own initiative, over statements made by members of the prosecution.

“Our point here is simple, we heard from the spokesperson of the impeachment courts that our case was motu proprio…now compare this with the treatment for the statement of VP Sara,” he said.

“When asked about it, the explanation of the spokesperson of the impeachment court is that they can not do anything about it because there should be an interested party that would bring it to the attention of the court,” he added.

Tolosa was referring to remarks Duterte made in a statement on 7 September in which she accused President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. of wielding influence over senators, prosecutors, justices and police officers in connection with cases against her. The prosecution has cited the remarks in questioning whether the court is applying its restrictions consistently. 

Duterte also accused the Marcos administration of subjecting her to “political harassment,” an allegation the administration has disputed.

Tolosa questioned the assertion that the impeachment court could not independently verify Duterte’s statement, saying it had been published through an official channel.

He said the prosecution panel was discussing whether to formally raise the matter before the impeachment court, stressing that any action would be a collective decision.

Tolosa added that consistent enforcement of the rules was important to the credibility of the tribunal.

“We know that any tribunal, it will be weakened when there is no equal application of rules. But when it shows that the rules are applied with an even hand, this will strengthen tribunals. So that’s all we’re asking for with all due respect,” he said.

Private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan echoed Tolosa, saying the sub judice rule announced by presiding officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero was intended to cover all participants in the proceedings.

“When the sub judice rule was set forth by the presiding officer, he said three things. It applies to the private prosecutors, it applies to the public prosecutors, it applies to the defense counsels, it applies to the senator-judges, it applies as well to all the parties,” Kapunan said.

“And when he says it applies to all, the Vice President is not exempt. There is no exception,” she added.

Tolosa and public prosecutor Rep. Terry Ridon earlier received show-cause orders from the impeachment court over public remarks that may have violated restrictions on discussing matters pending before the tribunal. 

The prosecution’s position does not itself establish that Duterte violated the sub judice rule. Any finding or sanction would be for the impeachment court to determine.