The Senate impeachment court is not a television studio.
It is not a law school moot court. It is certainly not a stage for viral moments.
Yet anyone following the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.
No member of the prosecution panel has attracted more public attention than Atty. Amando Virgil Ligutan.
The Leyte-born lawyer, a valedictorian of Sacred Heart Seminary in Palo, summa cum laude graduate of the University of San Carlos, and alumnus of the University of the Philippines College of Law, possesses credentials few would question.
His grasp of jurisprudence is evident.
His courtroom composure is undeniable.
But impressive credentials do not exempt a lawyer from criticism when style begins to compete with substance.
The prosecution's task is straightforward: present evidence strong enough to justify the extraordinary remedy of removing a duly elected Vice President from office.
Every minute spent creating memorable courtroom moments is a minute that risks shifting attention away from that constitutional burden.
The Waray-language exchange became the defining image of Ligutan's performance.
Instead of headlines focusing on evidence, testimony, or constitutional issues, the public conversation revolved around a lawyer speaking a regional language.
Social media erupted. Clips spread rapidly. Admirers applauded.
But impeachment trials are not won in comment sections.
Supporters described the episode as authentic.
Critics saw something less flattering: a lawyer fully aware that every exchange would be clipped, shared, and celebrated online.
Whether intentional or not, the effect was the same.
The lawyer became the story.
That should concern anyone who values the integrity of impeachment proceedings.
The contrast with the defense could hardly be clearer.
Lead counsel Atty. Shiela Sison and her colleagues have largely avoided theatrics.
Rather than seeking applause, they have focused on procedural objections, constitutional safeguards, evidentiary standards, and the limits of prosecutorial authority.
Their arguments may not dominate social media, but courtrooms are not popularity contests.
They are governed by rules, not reactions.
There is an old lesson every trial lawyer eventually learns: judges are rarely impressed by theatrics and drama.
They are persuaded by proof.
The Senate should be no different.
An impeachment court exists to weigh evidence with discipline, not emotion.
Every dramatic pause, every carefully crafted exchange, every moment seemingly designed for public consumption invites an uncomfortable question: is the objective to persuade the senator-judges or to cultivate public acclaim?
That question is particularly relevant in today's media environment, where a 30-second clip often receives more attention than hours of testimony.
The temptation to theatrics is real.
The discipline to resist it distinguishes advocacy from spectacle.
None of this diminishes Ligutan's intelligence or legal ability.
If anything, it raises the standard to which he should be held.
A lawyer of his caliber should not need theatrics to make his case.
The evidence should speak loudly enough on its own.
Ultimately, this impeachment will not be remembered for who delivered the most viral cross-examination or the most celebrated soundbite.
It will be remembered for whether the prosecution proved its allegations within the bounds of law.
Courtroom advocacy demands performance based on evidence and facts.
It does not demand theatrics.
When history looks back on this trial, the lasting question will not be who won social media.
It will be who convinced the court.
Those are not always the same thing.
#WeTakeAStand #OpinYon #OpinYonNews