Bernie Anabo Jr.
There are moments in a courtroom when lawyers argue over facts.
And then there are moments when someone simply stands up and says: ENOUGH. THE LAW IS THE LAW.
That was Atty. Amando Virgil Ligutan on August 26.
And frankly, somebody had to say it.
Ligutan did not walk into the Senate impeachment court to pick a personal fight. He did not name names. He did not launch a personal attack.
He defended something far more important: the integrity of the Rules of Court.
The controversy began after defense counsel Kristine Ferrer reportedly claimed that misleading questions are “allowed” during cross-examination.
Ligutan, a lawyer and law professor of nearly two decades, responded publicly with what he presented as a basic evidentiary principle:
«“Misleading questions are NOT allowed even on cross-examination.”»
That should have been the end of the story.
Correct the mistake. Move on.
But NO.
Instead of simply addressing the legal issue, the defense turned the spotlight toward Ligutan himself—questioning his conduct, invoking courtroom decorum and even throwing the word “humility” into the argument.
And that is where the defense, in my view, badly miscalculated.
Because they picked the wrong lawyer to lecture about humility.
LIGUTAN: “DON’T MAKE THIS PERSONAL.”
Ligutan’s response was devastating precisely because he refused to make it personal.
He made the issue about the law.
“I shall not name names. I will not put you on the spot. But the post is not about you. It’s not personal, it is about the law that we all adhere to.”
BOOM!
There it was.
No theatrics.
No personal naming-and-shaming.
Just the law.
The irony is difficult to miss: a lawyer posts a reminder about an evidentiary rule, and suddenly the discussion becomes about the lawyer who posted it.
Why?
If the legal principle is wrong, prove it wrong.
If the rule permits misleading questions in the circumstances being discussed, cite the rule.
If Ligutan misstated the law, correct the law.
But attacking the messenger does not erase the message.
THE “PROBINSYANO” MOMENT
Then came Ligutan’s most powerful punch.
«“Being a probinsyano… born without a famous family name who had to compete for his spot, I know a thing or two about humility. The defense cannot lecture me on humility.”»
That was not arrogance.
That was a man defending his credibility.
Ligutan essentially said: I earned my place. I know what humility costs. Don’t weaponize the word against me simply because I corrected a legal proposition.
And that distinction matters.
Humility does not mean remaining silent when something is legally incorrect.
Humility means having the courage to admit when you are wrong.
That cuts both ways.
THE REAL ISSUE: CAN LAWYERS ADMIT A MISTAKE?
Ligutan hit the heart of the controversy when he argued:
«“What is more troubling is for the defense not to admit their mistake and instead call out a lawyer, a teacher, who just stated what is correct…”»
That is the bombshell.
Because the bigger question is no longer about one Facebook post.
It is about professional accountability.
In the legal profession, mistakes happen.
Lawyers are human.
But when a legal error is pointed out, the honorable response is not to attack the person who identified it.
The honorable response is:
“You’re right. We stand corrected.”
Period.
No drama.
No wounded pride.
No sermon about humility.
No attempt to turn a legal correction into a character issue.
AND THEN CAME CHIZ
This is where Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero enters the picture.
Rather than allowing the controversy to remain where it belonged—the legal issue—Escudero reportedly focused on procedural and decorum considerations, including telling Ligutan to “unbundle and decouple” his role as an educator from his role in the impeachment proceedings.
With due respect, that approach deserves scrutiny.
Because there is a fundamental difference between being discourteous and being correct.
Courtroom decorum is important.
But decorum should never become a shield against legitimate legal criticism.
If the argument is about the Rules of Court, then let the Rules of Court answer.
Not wounded egos.
Not political sensitivities.
Not courtroom theatrics.
THE LAW.
LIGUTAN DID WHAT A LAW PROFESSOR SHOULD DO
Atty. Amando Ligutan deserves credit for one thing above all:
He refused to be bullied into silence.
He stood behind the legal principle he believed to be correct.
He explained himself.
He did not hide behind a famous surname.
He did not retreat because the other side was politically powerful.
And he did not allow the word “humility” to be transformed into a weapon against intellectual honesty.
That takes courage.
Especially inside a politically charged impeachment proceeding where every word can become ammunition.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT PRIDE.
