Judicial Decorum Betrayed: Insults Mar Impeachment Proceedings, Prosecution’s Flaws Exposed

Atty. Amando Virgil Descartin Ligutan and Senator Raffy Tulfo

Judicial Decorum Betrayed: Insults Mar Impeachment Proceedings, Prosecution’s Flaws Exposed

By Bing Jabadan – TheNATIONWEEK.com | August 25, 2026

MANILA, Philippines – The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte has descended into procedural chaos and a serious breach of judicial conduct, raising profound questions about the integrity of the nation’s highest constitutional proceeding. The 17th day of the trial exposed critical weaknesses in the prosecution’s case and witnessed an egregious display of judicial impropriety, undermining the solemnity of the Senate Impeachment Court.

The prosecution’s evidentiary strategy has faltered, with a key witness, Department of Education disbursing officer Edward Fajarda, sidelined by a stroke. This setback has thrown their timeline into disarray, prompting the issuance of subpoenas for three senior Armed Forces of the Philippines officers: Colonels Manaros Boransing II, Magtanggol Panopio, and Adonis Bajao, scheduled to appear on August 26.

Testimony from former Office of the Vice President special disbursing officer Gina Acosta highlighted significant gaps in accountability. Prosecutors presented receipts detailing seemingly fabricated names and expenditures, including “Antonio Pagong” for a P100,000 “information purchase” and “Timon Andrew Pusa” for a P100,000 “vehicle rental.” Acosta confirmed she never personally witnessed these payments, attributing all disbursement authority to Colonel Raymund Dante Lachica. Furthermore, she repeatedly claimed an inability to recall specifics regarding the allocation of nearly P1.8 billion in confidential funds during Duterte’s tenure as Davao City mayor from 2019 to 2022.

Tensions flared when prosecution counsel Amando Virgil Descartin Ligutan disparagingly labeled the handling of confidential funds a “scam,” a remark swiftly challenged by defense lawyer Lindon Miguel C. Bacquel and subsequently stricken from the official record. Further inconsistencies emerged when the Vice President’s verified participation in an uncompensated tree-planting activity in Lanao del Norte directly contradicted the prosecution’s insinuation that such work necessitated confidential funding. The prosecution has indicated it may subpoena Colonel Lachica to clarify these discrepancies. While Senate Impeachment Court spokesperson Atty. Reginald Tongol acknowledged that minor inconsistencies can bolster genuine testimony, Senator-Judge Lito Lapid made light of claims regarding funds routed to relatives. The most disturbing development stemmed from the conduct of the bench itself.

When the Bench Becomes a Stage

During proceedings on August 24, Senator-Judge Raffy Tulfo launched a public verbal assault on witness Gina Acosta. Questioning her about the questionable receipts, Tulfo asked if she considered herself “smart, average, or stupid.” When Acosta responded “average,” Tulfo declared, “So for me, in this case, you are stupid in the name of blind loyalty,” repeating the insult in Filipino, using the term estupido, while criticizing her for following instructions.

This exchange was not merely unprofessional; it represented a fundamental betrayal of a senator-judge’s duties. Tulfo appeared to conflate the solemnity of the Senate chamber with the sensationalism of his television platform, where he built his reputation. An impeachment court is not a broadcast studio, and witnesses are not guests to be humiliated for public consumption.

An impeachment trial is a proceeding of supreme national importance, mandated by Article XI, Section 3(6) of the 1987 Constitution. Every senator sitting in judgment is bound by an oath to act with unwavering impartiality, restraint, and dignity. Senate rules explicitly mandate political neutrality and proper judicial demeanor. These standards are not mere formalities; they are the bedrock of public trust in the entire process.

Established Precedent Against Abusive Language

The Supreme Court has unequivocally addressed this precise form of conduct. In Uy v. Judge Jorge Emmanuel M. Lorredo (A.M. No. MTJ-24-023, August 6, 2024), the Court definitively ruled that using terms such as “stupid” or similar insults towards a witness constitutes “unbecoming conduct” and violates judicial standards. The Court emphasized that intemperate language serves no legal purpose, adds no clarity to the facts, and fundamentally undermines the authority and integrity of the court.

These standards apply with equal force to senator-judges. While they are not career jurists, they assume full adjudicative authority when hearing an impeachment trial—the profound power to determine whether an elected official is removed from office. That authority demands the same rigorous discipline and respect for witnesses required of any judge.

Humiliation Proves Nothing

Calling a witness “stupid” does not prove funds were misused, receipts were forged, or laws were broken. Such behavior does not advance the search for truth; instead, it diverts focus from the evidence and onto the highly questionable conduct of the bench itself. An enormous power imbalance exists between a sitting senator and a witness compelled to testify. To wield that authority to publicly degrade an individual violates basic fairness and the inherent dignity of all persons appearing before the court.

Credibility is established through the rigorous examination of evidence, the meticulous comparison of statements, and careful, professional cross-examination—not through personal insults. Judicial temperament demands unwavering patience, even when testimony is contradictory or unconvincing. Self-control is not a sign of weakness, but an indispensable requirement of the office.

A Standard the Nation Deserves

Millions of Filipinos are intently observing these proceedings, and their official record will become an indelible part of the country’s constitutional history. The public is entitled to witness a court that rigorously upholds the rule of law, not one that mimics the sensational drama of entertainment media. Conduct from the bench profoundly shapes the reputation of the entire Senate, and insults directed at witnesses erode public confidence that justice will be served fairly and impartially.

Senator Tulfo must immediately reevaluate his approach to these critical proceedings. He must recognize that his role as senator-judge demands far greater restraint and adherence to decorum than his public persona, and that the Senate chamber is absolutely not a platform for personal commentary or public shaming.

All senator-judges must receive formal, comprehensive orientation on judicial conduct, the appropriate treatment of witnesses, and the full weight of the constitutional duties they carry. The Filipino people have every right to expect proceedings conducted with an unwavering commitment to dignity, fairness, and profound respect—for all parties, and for every witness called to testify before this paramount court.

*         *         *

Influence the Influential. Power Truth. TheNATIONWEEK.com

More than news: we are a defining force in independent journalism, delivering rigorous, unbiased reporting to an engaged, opinion-shaping audience that values integrity. Partner with us to align your brand with trust, reach discerning leaders, and amplify your impact. Your message. Our mission. Unrivaled engagement. Email nationweek@yahoo.com today.