No reprimand from impeachment court for Ridon, only stern warning

MANILA, Philippines — The Senate impeachment court has considered public prosecutor and Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon’s explanation as to why he should not be cited for violation of the sub judice rule over his comments, issuing just a stern warning against him instead.

Ridon on Monday, after Day 30 of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, confirmed in an interview that the court has issued a decision on the show-cause order issued against him last September 16, asking him to explain his comments made during media interviews.

The lawmaker also shared a copy of the court’s ruling with reporters.

Article continues after this advertisement

“Sa araw po na ito, natanggap po natin ‘yon pong pagpapasya ng Senate impeachment court sa show-cause order laban po sa atin, ang sabi po ng Senate Impeachment Court ay nag-issue sila ng stern warning sa atin,” Ridon told reporters in an ambush interview.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

(On this day, we have received the decision of the Senate Impeachment Court regarding the show-cause order issued against me, and the Senate Impeachment Court said they are issuing a stern warning against me.)

“Tinatanggap po natin ito pong warning na ito, at nagpapasalamat tayo sa Senate impeachment court sa kanila pong graciousness dito sa bagay po na ito,” he added.

(We accept this warning, and we thank the Senate impeachment court for their graciousness about this matter.)

One of the reasons why a show-cause order was issued was because Ridon seemed to claim that Vice President Sara Duterte’s Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) already fits the criteria for evidence in Article II of the Articles of Impeachment. 

Article continues after this advertisement

The lawmaker later clarified that he never “intended to prejudge the case, influence the senator-Judges, substitute public discussion for the evidence.”

“Accordingly, the Court hereby issues a stern warning to Rep. Terry L. Ridon to exercise greater restraint in future public statements concerning the merits of the pending impeachment trial,” Presiding Officer and Senator-judge Francis Escudero said in the order from the impeachment court which Ridon shared to reporters.

Article continues after this advertisement

“Rep. Ridon is placed on notice that subsequent similar conduct shall be evaluated in light of this stern warning and when warranted, shall be met with a more severe penalty,” the ruling added.

READ: Ridon says trial remarks meant to explain, not influence impeach court

According to Ridon, he and the prosecution team will “exercise greater restraint” on their statements, but it will not deter them from continuing to clarify matters for the public’s understanding.

Aside from Ridon, counsel for the prosecution Benjamin Tolosa Jr. was also given a show-cause order for another set of remarks that is initially deemed to be a violation of the sub judice rule.

No copy of the ruling on Tolosa’s response has been shared or published as of posting time.

“We are committed to exercise greater restraint on particular details of the impeachment proceedings moving forward, but we will continue on with our work as lead prosecutor for unexplained wealth, at doon po sa sa ating commitment sa publiko na ipapaliwanag po ang mga usapin po ng impeachment sa mga paraan na kanila pong pinaka-mauunawaan,” Ridon said.

(We are committed to exercise greater restraint on particular details of the impeachment proceedings moving forward, but we will continue on with our work as lead prosecutor for unexplained wealth, and in our commitment to the public to explain impeachment discussions in a manner that they would understand the most.)

A stricter implementation of the sub judice rule came after a manifestation from lead counsel for respondent Sheila Sison last August 12, when she questioned counsel for prosecution Amando Virgil Ligutan over a Facebook post in which he said that a “principle all lawyers and law students know by heart” is that “misleading questions are not allowed even on cross-examination.”

Sison said Ligutan did not name anyone, but he was clearly referring to counsel for respondent Kristine Ferrer — particularly the exchange between her and another prosecution counsel. Atty. Lorna Kapunan when Ferrer was cross-examining state auditor Xylene Mae del Campo.

As she insisted that Ferrer is wrong in stating that she can throw questions answerable by yes or no only, Kapunan said that “misleading questions are not allowed.”  Afterward, Ferrer responded, “it is allowed.” 

But Sison said that Ferrer’s “it is allowed” quip was not a reply to Kapunan’s “misleading questions are not allowed” even on cross-examination statement — making Ligutan’s social media post as something done in “bad faith.”

In response, Escudero said last August 26 that while they would no longer punish previous violations, the ruling will apply to all parties moving forward. 

READ: Escudero draws line on trial statements, warns of 2-strike muzzle

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

For lawyers representing the prosecution and defense, public reprimand with admonition awaits sub judice rule violators on their first strike, while a monetary fine of P30,000, with the possibility of being restricted from speaking, objecting, or examining witnesses on the floor, may be imposed on succedding violations. /gsg