Ask Compañero

15/08/2026

15/08/2026

RULE 18: FAIR RULE OR SELECTIVE GAG ORDER?

I question the wisdom of Rule 18.

An impeachment trial is sui generis. It is not an ordinary criminal or civil case. The Presiding Officer and Senator-Judges, as the ones who will decide the case, should of course strive to maintain impartiality and avoid public comments on the merits.

But the prosecutors and defense lawyers are advocates. They are arguably the people best qualified to explain to the public their respective positions.

Yet Rule 18 effectively tells them: argue your case inside the Senate, but don't discuss its merits outside.

Meanwhile, mainstream media, netizens, legal content creators, and vloggers can freely analyze the same evidence and tell the public who they think is right or wrong.

Is that really the wisest policy?

Be that as it may, if Rule 18 is to be enforced, then enforce it equally.

And I personally do not think Atty. Amando Ligutan should be sanctioned for his post on misleading questions. If his post merely explained the legal rule that misleading questions are prohibited even on cross-examination, without identifying anyone or commenting on the merits, that is legal education, not necessarily advocacy on the case.

But if that post is deemed a Rule 18 violation, then the same standard must apply to everyone covered by the rule.

That includes Senator-Judges.

What about Senator Pia Cayetano sharing a video perceived as taunting Atty. Chel Diokno? What about Senator Robin Padilla's repeated public posts expressing his thoughts on the impeachment case?

And if we are concerned about Senator-Judges appearing to favor one side, then Senator Padilla and Senator Imee Marcos' defense-favorable questions may certainly raise questions about the appearance of impartiality, although I would distinguish that from an actual Rule 18 violation. Questions asked during trial are not automatically "public comments."

The same standard must also apply to VP Sara herself, who has publicly criticized the proceedings as "bending the law."

She has every right to criticize the proceedings. But if Rule 18 prohibits the impeached official from publicly commenting on the merits, then that restriction must apply to her too.

No selective enforcement. No double standard.

Either Rule 18 applies equally to everyone covered by the rule, or the Senate should reconsider the wisdom of the rule itself.

Because a rule intended to protect the integrity of the impeachment process should never become a tool for selectively silencing one side.

Hindi problema ang Rule 18 kung pantay ang pagpapatupad. Ang problema ay kung magiging Rule 18 para sa prosecution, pero optional lang para sa iba.

Photo credit: Pilipino Star Ngayon

15/08/2026

RULES WHEN TO OBJECT AND WHEN
NOT TO OBJECT DURING THE TRIAL.
By atty. Florante A. Zagada.

One of the favorite reactions of trial lawyer during the trial is to object to the question of the opposing. There is nothing wrong about it. But the problem is when you are objecting when you are not supposed to object or when you object without any valid or justifiable reasons.

According to Poulos in his book, "The Trial of Celebrated Criminal Cases: An Analysis of Evidentiary Objections,”, he listed the principal purposes of trial lawyers for making an objection and for not objecting.

Among the purposes for objecting are:

1. To exclude improper evidence;

2. To clarify evidence for the fact finder,.

3. To clarify a question for a witness;.

4. To protect a witness.

5. To control the form of the examination.

6. To expose or terminate the proponent’s use of unfair tactics;

7. To make a record for an appeal; and

8. To force the proponent to produce evidence or to take a position favorable to the objection.

On the other hand, the principal reasons for not objecting include:

1. The offered evidence or the proponent’s behavior is helpful.

2. The offered evidence or the proponent’s behavior is not harmful.

3. The improbability of reversal on appeal.

4. The danger of alienating the fact finder or the trial judge;

5. The danger of forcing the use of more harmful evidence;

6. The danger of hghlighting harmful evidence.

7. The danger of having the objection overruled.

8. The danger of educating the proponent.

9. The danger of breaking the pace of favorable evidence; and,

10. The danger of giving the proponent a tactical opportunity, such as conveying an argument tothe fact finder that would be otherwise impermissible.”

If our reason to object does not fall in any of the above reasons, it is advisable to keep our mouth shut to protect the interest of your clients.

15/08/2026

‘A RULE SHOULD APPLY TO ALL’

House impeachment prosecutor Atty. Lorna Kapunan called for the rules of the impeachment proceedings to be applied equally to everyone involved, including the senator-judges, amid recent discussions over the conduct of lawyers and other participants in the trial.

Kapunan said senator-judges, in particular, should observe political neutrality and be reminded of their responsibilities in the proceedings.

She said the situation would also test the presiding officer’s willingness to ensure that the same standards are observed by everyone in the impeachment court.

“This is where we will see the political will of the presiding officer, if he will take this opportunity to also remind the senator-judges,” she added.

15/08/2026

'[FAMILY] DOES NOT MEAN… ONLY A MARRIED COUPLE WITH CHILDREN'

As the Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday concluded its oral arguments on the recognition of foreign divorce between two Filipinos, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen said that there can be strong families even without marriage.

At one point, Leonen then asked Solicitor General Darlene Berberabe if a widow and a child, a single parent, a single parent with a partner they are not married to, an unmarried couple with children, same-sex partners with adopted children, and an orphan being taken care of by his or her grandparents were considered family.

Berberabe answered yes to each one.

“Therefore, when we read family there, that is to be strengthened as an autonomous social institution, it does not mean… only a married couple with children,” Leonen said.

He cited Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution, which starts with: "The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution."

Read the whole story here:
https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/998113/sc-ends-oral-arguments-on-foreign-divorce-leonen-says-who-to-love-is-human-right/story/