Freedom of expression, more compelling than "sub judice"

The rule on "sub judice", which is a mere procedural protocol, enunciated by the Rules of Court, and by the Rules of the Senate Impeachment Court, to our mind, with utmost respect, cannot be made to prevail over substantive liberties and freedoms. The powers of courts cannot be more compelling than the liberties of the citizens. Sovereignty resides in the people who have the right to express and to know the truth.

The basic constitutional rights of the citizens, enshrined in the Bill of Rights including the freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and the fundamental right of the people to know all matters affecting public interests cannot be abridged by mere rules of procedures. The people cannot be gagged and the citizens cannot be prevented from knowing the truth in the name of flawless and smooth court proceedings.

If the Senate wanted no publication, then they should not have agreed to broadcast their proceedings. If secrecy and confidentiality is, to them, more imperative than the peoples' right to know then, they should have held the impeachment in closed-door sessions like the Vatican's sanctum sanctorum during a sacred conclave whenever they elect a new pope. The senators were the first ones who opened Pandora’s Box. They have to face the consequences.

The term '"sub judice" is literally interpreted as "under a judge" or "subject of a present litigation" or a case "under current court proceedings". In order not to disturb, impede, or unduly affect the outcome of the pending case, all parties including lawyers, litigants, are forbidden from making public statements or writing publicly about issues that are being actively litigated in court.

Under Section 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability or CPRA, a lawyer is ordered not to use any forum or medium to comment or publicize opinion pertaining to a pending proceeding. The explicit aims are to avoid causing a prejudgment, or avoid swaying public perception and to prevent unduly influencing a judge to decide one way or another.

As a member of the Bar, I submit the CPRA is a reasonable rule of procedures covering lawyers who are handling pending civil, criminal, and other related cases in court. But, with due respect, this should not be applied to the impeachment proceeding, which is not purely a legal proceeding but largely a political one. Public interests will be prejudiced if the freedom of expression is curtailed.

There is nothing to prevent senator-judges to be unduly swayed or influenced. Many of them have already displayed, and are continuing to manifest obvious prejudgments already by the manner and content of their questioning, their antagonism against witnesses, and their palpable bias in favor or against one side cannot fool the discerning perception of a thinking citizenry.

It is highly unfair for the senate to gag the people, including lawyers, from expressing their views over the TV, radio, print media and the social platforms, while senator-judges enjoy unrestrained freedom to insult a witness or make declarations that constitute prejudgment of the issues. If a senator-judge can call a witness stupid while on national television, why can't the citizens issue their own views on the matter?

They call themselves servants of the people, they call the Senate and the Lower House as the chamber of the people, the house of the people, and now they restrain, prohibit, and threaten the people with punishments for speaking out. I know that freedom is not limitless and rights have boundaries, but their powers too are not unlimited. They cannot issue a threat against the people they are supposed to serve.

At the end of the day, it is the truth that shall prevail. It is the truth that shall decide whether the vice president is guilty or innocent. Even if there is no 16 votes to convict, the people should know who is right and who is wrong. The Senate Impeachment Court should not prevent them from knowing and from expressing what they think is true.