Ridon, Tolosa question why impeachment court did not act on Sara Duterte's remark

Two members of the House prosecution team have questioned why the impeachment court did not ask Vice President Sara Duterte to explain her remark that President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. controls the senators, judges, and the police. Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon stated in an interview that the Vice President's comment, "I think very clear that there is a violation of the sub judice rule when the vice president said that the president controls the senators because it goes against the integrity of the Senate itself." In a separate report, private counsel to the impeachment trial, Benjamin Tolosa, echoed Ridon's sentiment, calling the statement an "attack against the integrity of the court." Tolosa expressed hope for an "equal application of rules." Ridon and Tolosa themselves had previously been asked by the impeachment court to explain alleged violations of the sub judice rule following their own statements related to the ongoing impeachment trial. They submitted their response on Friday, maintaining that their statements did not address the merits of the case but rather focused on procedure and summarized matters already publicly discussed. Tolosa argued that "none of the challenged statements falls within the prohibition under Rule 18. Some concerned only procedural matters and did not evaluate the merits of the case. The others merely recounted matters already placed on the public record during the proceedings, fairly and accurately, in good faith, and without editorial comment." He further clarified that his statements did not claim the prosecution's evidence was sufficient to warrant conviction. Ridon, in his reply, stated that his "public statements have been made in the course of performing his responsibilities as a member of the House Prosecution Panel, and pursuant to the prosecution's commitment to keep the public informed of the status and progress of the impeachment proceedings." He asserted he "never intended to prejudge the case, influence the Senator-Judges, substitute public discussion for the evidence and arguments properly presented before the Honorable Court, or diminish the authority of the Honorable Court to determine the merits of the impeachment case." This situation highlights the ongoing tension in Philippine politics between freedom of speech and the need to maintain the integrity of judicial processes, particularly concerning remarks made by high-ranking officials and their potential impact on public trust in both political institutions and the justice system. Information Source: GMA News Philippines