Senate impeachment court Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero reminded senator-judges and lawyers that unsatisfactory witness answers do not automatically constitute grounds for contempt, urging them to exercise restraint when questioning defense witnesses and uphold their right to protection from improper or insulting treatment.
“The Chair wishes to emphasize that an answer which may be unsatisfactory is not inherently contemptible,” Escudero said, citing Supreme Court guidance that courts must exercise the power of contempt with the highest restraint.
Escudero issued the reminder on Nov. 12 after three senator-judges lashed out this week at the first witnesses called by the defense team, accusing them of evasiveness and disrespect toward the Senate court.
Sen. Erwin Tulfo said Monday that Davao City assessor Jaime Adalin appeared to be fooling the court after the witness said he could not recall a trip to China. Tulfo reminded Adalin that he could be cited for contempt.
Sen. Ping Lacson said Tuesday that Adalin had smirked and laughed during testimony, nearly making a mockery of the trial. He stressed that the court’s power to punish contempt is expressly provided in its rules. Later Tuesday, Sen. Raffy Tulfo criticized both witnesses’ conduct after Davao City accountant Vingeline Bahan answered evasively. He asked why the court could not cite them for contempt, and said it might be time to make an example of someone.
Escudero cited Rule 132, Section 3 of the Rules on Evidence, which protects witnesses from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions and harsh treatment.
Escudero clarified that witnesses remain obligated to answer truthfully under oath. However, answers such as “I do not know” and “I do not recall” do not automatically warrant contempt.
He urged senator-judges and counsels to maintain fairness, dignity, and respect throughout the trial, regardless of their frustration with witness testimony.
