Impeachment may be political. It may be bruising, theatrical, and occasionally combustible. But it is still a legal proceeding, and lawyers do not get a temporary exemption from good manners simply because the stakes are high.
That is the uncomfortable lesson from the latest courtroom spat, where a social media post by a private prosecutor drew a defense objection over decorum and comments on the proceedings.
The quarrel may seem almost quaint in an age when lawyers can litigate in the morning and litigate again on social media by lunchtime. It should not.
Rule 18 of the impeachment court exists for a reason. It bars participants from commenting on the merits of the case while proceedings are pending. It is not a suggestion to be followed only when everyone is feeling civil. It is a guardrail against turning a courtroom into a public-relations battlefield.
The Supreme Court’s Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability is even blunter. Canon II on Propriety, Section 37 on Online Posts, requires lawyers to ensure that their social media posts, whether public or shared with a restricted audience, uphold the dignity of the legal profession, shield it from disrepute, and maintain respect for the law.
That rule is particularly relevant when a courtroom quarrel spills onto Facebook or other platforms. A lawyer may be right on the law and still wrong in the manner of making the point. Correctness is not a substitute for courtesy.
The dispute over questioning also deserves some legal housekeeping. Rule 132, Section 10 of the Rules of Court distinguishes leading questions from misleading ones. Leading questions suggest the answer and are generally prohibited on direct examination, subject to recognized exceptions. Misleading questions are another matter. They assume as true facts not yet testified to or contradict prior testimony and are not permitted.
So yes, lawyers should object when questions violate the rules. That is advocacy. But there is a difference between making a forceful objection in court and taking a swipe at a fellow lawyer online.
Lawyers are trained to know that distinction. They are also expected to practice it.
The Impeachment Court will issue a ruling on Monday to enforce Rule 18 and clarify its legal bounds. Those bounds, the presiding officer said, have been crossed “many, many times,” with each occasion documented.
That is perhaps the most telling detail. In a courtroom, memories can be disputed, impressions colored, and tempers heated. A recording, however, is rather less sentimental.
The public is watching, too. In an impeachment trial, every raised voice, sarcastic remark, and social media jab can become part of the spectacle.
The legal profession should resist becoming the spectacle.
Because impeachment is not a television show, a social media contest, or a lawyers’ exercise in rhetorical one-upmanship. It is a proceeding Filipinos have entrusted to their representatives to determine whether a public official has violated that trust and should be removed from office.
That trust deserves something close to sacred treatment. Impeachment should be solemn, disciplined, and worthy of the people who delegated the power. It should be a test of accountability, not a spectacle of incivility.
The courtroom is a place for fierce advocacy. It should never become a license to forget simple decency.
