









































Pa
ge

 
1



Pa
ge

 
1

American Journal of  Society and Law 
(AJSL) 

A Forensic Linguistics Analysis of  Senate Investigations on the Matter of  People’s 
Initiative in the Philippines: Language Crimes in Focus

Brandon N. Obenza1*, Chryzl Joy O. Deluao2

Volume 4 Issue 1, Year 2025
ISSN: 2835-3277 (Online)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54536/ajsl.v4i1.4010
https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Article Information ABSTRACT

Received: November 09, 2024
Accepted: December 13, 2024
Published: January 25, 2025

This critical discourse analysis aims to expose the violations of  the standards and guidelines 
of  conversation specifically in the context of  senate investigations on the matter of  
People’s Initiative in the Philippines. Moreover, this study delved into the violations of  
maxims within the premise of  cooperative principle conceptualized by Grice. This study 
utilized a qualitative research design using forensic linguistics through critical discourse 
analysis, with corpus linguistics of  two 4-hour length senate investigation videos which 
focus on spoken legal language. The findings revealed the frequency of  violations of  the 
four maxims within the analyzed corpora as follows: 23% on the maxim of  quality, 23% 
on the maxim of  quantity, 34% on the maxim of  relevance, and 20% on the maxim of  
manner. This finding signifies the complexities of  linguistic behavior within the analyzed 
corpora and offers insights into the discourse surrounding People’s Initiative in the 
Philippines.

Keywords

Critical Discourse Analysis, 
Language Crime, People’s Initiative, 
Philippines, Violations of  Maxims

1 University of  Mindanao, Davao City, 8000, Philippines 
2  Barayong National High School , Philippines
* Corresponding author’s e-mail: bobenza@umindanao.edu.ph

INTRODUCTION
Language crime refers to acts or behaviors that violate 
societal standards or rules governing language (Dewi & 
La’biran, 2023). It often occurs when speakers use words 
for malicious or unethical intent, when someone uses 
harsh or degrading language, when someone intimidates 
or threats another or insults or belittles another person 
which may compromise the victim’s sense of  security 
and comfort and jeopardize their mental and emotional 
health (Dewi & La’biran, 2023; Dewi & Rukuk, 2022; 
Suryani et al., 2021; La’biran et al., 2019). All crimes 
committed by language are related to the illegal speech 
act (Tiersma & Solan, 2012). Speech acts include asking 
questions, making threats, lying, agreeing, and promising; 
under certain conditions, some of  these can be criminal 
(Tiersma & Solan, 2012).
Meanwhile, investigations and hearings allow legislators 
to obtain information, explore ideas, and evaluate support 
for proposed legislative stance (Perna et al., 2019; Reisigl 
& Wodak, 2016; Birkland, 2016; Deimer & Feddersen, 
2000). They are held to gather data and feedback, to 
carry out investigations, or to assess the operations of  
government agencies. According to Reisigl and  Wodak 
(2016), legislative hearings are a genre of  discourse 
with a specific purpose in a specific social context and 
set standards and guidelines that control all facets of  
communication. Hence, in order to fulfill the goal of  
these proceedings, speakers are expected to participate 
in a discourse by providing a clear and appropriate 
responses. It is therefore expected that every speaker will 
present only pertinent and clear information to serve its 
purpose.
With the recognized standards established on senate 
investigations, there are still observable instances where 

speakers in these proceedings commit language crime by 
providing irrelevant, ambiguous, insufficient, and false 
responses leading to unsuccessful discourse. Hence, 
Forensic linguistics is used to analyze the language crimes 
committed by these speakers (Dewi & La’biran, 2023; 
Hendrokumoro et al., 2019; Rusdiansyah, 2021). Forensic 
Linguistics (FL) is a subfield of  applied linguistics that 
studies and ties law to legal procedures (Hassan, 2020). 
In other words, it is the application of  linguistics to three 
major areas: written legal texts, spoken legal practices 
(interactions), and the presentation of  evidence in civil 
and criminal investigations and judicial procedures 
(Coulthard et al., 2011). With the use of  FL, experts in 
languages will study the language and speech used by 
offenders of  language crimes. The language patterns, 
phrase structures, word choices, and language styles 
employed by those who commit language crimes will be 
examined.
In the conduct of  senate proceedings in the Philippines, 
there are still evident violation that flag the discourses as 
malicious and irrelevant which entails to be committing 
a language crime. Some statements misdirect the flow of  
the discourses to provide ambiguous answers and alter 
the course of  the discussion.
In order to expose the violation of  the standards and 
guidelines of  conversation specifically in the context of  
senate investigations on the matter of  People’s Initiative 
in the Philippines, this study delved into the violations 
of  maxims within the premise of  cooperative principle 
conceptualized by Grice. By analyzing the discourse of  
these hearings, this study revealed how speakers during 
the senate investigation violated the maxims and what 
potential language crime they committed brought by 
imposing an idea, providing a response, misdirecting 



Pa
ge

 
2

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 1-10, 2025

a point and framing statements. This study revealed 
the ways in which the speakers cooperate and express 
themselves in conversation while breaching the theory of  
Cooperative Principle. According to Monemi (2012), the 
violations of  language theories, such as the cooperative 
principle, can help analyze crime. The main objective of  
this research is to explore the violated maxims in Senate 
hearings using Critical Discourse Analysis and analyze 
whether these violations lead to a potential language 
crime.

Research Questions
This study sought to answer the following research 
questions:

1. What are the violations committed by the speakers in 
the premise of  Cooperative Principle of  Grice?

2. What are the implicatures of  the violations 
committed during the senate investigations and hearing?

3. What language crimes are potentially committed 
by the speakers during the senate hearings of  people’s 
initiative?

Theoretical Lens
This paper is grounded upon Grice’ Cooperative 
Principles (1975) which supported the comprehensive 
discussion of  the study. Cooperative principle states 
that participants in a discussion are required to make 
conversational contributions as needed based on the 
established purpose of  the conversation. The cooperative 
principle’s main premise is that interlocutors cooperate 
when they are having conversation (Al-Zubeiry, 2020). 
Conversation only works when both speakers produce 
proper utterances (Grice, 1975).
Establishing rules to follow, Grice proposes four 
conversational maxims for speakers in order to 
assure effective interaction. To successfully create a 
conversation, participants in the discussion would be 
required to abide by the four maxims; maxim of  quantity 
where a speaker should provide as much information as 
necessary, and should never provide more information 
that is not necessary; maxim of  quality, where a speaker 
should make an effort to contribute something honest 
and do not mention something that is untrue; maxim 
of  manner, where a speaker should refrain from being 
ambiguous; and maxim of  relation, where a speaker 
should be relevant). He asserted that considering the 
cooperative principle and the maxims is reasonable in 
the sense that anyone who is concerned with the main 
purpose of  communication such as sharing and receiving 
information should be expected to be interested in taking 
part in the productive conversation. He further stressed 
that a speaker may mislead if  he violates a maxim.
Additionally, Grice stressed that a conversation with 
people who is uncooperative would be unproductive since 
they will not add anything relevant to the topic. According 
to him, there are situations in which interlocutors deviate 
from the conversational maxims. They deliberately 
violate the maxim in order to convey more information 

or infer meaning. Any maxim that is violated leads to 
conversational implicatures, and it is up to the listener to 
deduce the additional meaning that is suggested. Using 
Grice’s four conversational maxims, this research will 
examine how particular legislators’ statements breached 
the cooperative principle, leading to ambiguity, new ideas 
and gaps in the discourse.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Research Design
This research study utilized the qualitative research 
method and employed a Critical Discourse Analysis 
(CDA). According to Creswell (2018). qualitative research 
is a method for discovering and comprehending the 
meaning that individuals or groups assign to a social 
or human situation. The research process involves 
emergent questions and processes, data collection in the 
participant’s environment, inductive data analysis building 
from specifics to general themes, and the researcher’s 
interpretations of  the data’s significance. This type of  
inquiry is supported by those who value an inductive 
method of  inquiry, an emphasis on personal meaning, 
and the significance of  reporting situational complexity.
On the other hand, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is 
an interdisciplinary qualitative method used for examining 
spoken or written language in connection to social and 
actual contexts (Dewan, 2023). CDA is an effective 
analytical method for comprehending the phenomena 
of  crime and criminal justice systems. Its most essential 
element is the investigation of  text and speech structures, 
as well as their interactions with public and social 
situations (Cruz, 2013). It analyzes language as a tool for 
social behavior, power abuse, domination, inequality, and 
many other issues that are played out and repeated in texts 
and conversations. It also critically examines, interprets, 
and explains language discourses. With CDA, this study 
identified the violations committed by the speakers in the 
senate hearings in the area of  Cooperative Principle of  
Grice. After determining the violations, the researcher 
then examined how these violations imply meaning and/
or mislead the conversation. This also revealed language 
crimes that were potentially committed by the speakers 
during the senate hearings.
In this research, CDA is the suitable design because the 
study aimed to identify the violations committed by the 
speakers in the premise of  Cooperative Principle of  Grice, 
the implicatures of  the violations committed during the 
senate investigations and hearing and the language crimes 
are committed during senate hearings and investigations.

Data Source
The research corpora were sourced from the senate 
hearings and investigations made by politicians, witnesses 
and other interlocutors. Specifically, the discourses 
analyzed pertain to the current topic of  People’s Initiative 
as a means to amend the Philippine Constitution. These 
speeches were sourced from official You-tube and social 
media channels affiliated with the country’s prominent 



Pa
ge

 
3

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 1-10, 2025

media outlets. Adhering to these criteria enabled the 
researchers to gather authentic and substantial speeches 
for rigorous analysis.
The researchers applied the purposive sampling method 
in gathering the videos of  senate hearings regarding 
People’s Initiative since data sources were selected 
according to pre-selected criteria relevant to the topic 
being investigated. With a specific purpose, two existing 
videos on senate investigation on People’s
Initiative with four hours and more length were chosen. 
These videos were readily available on the internet.

Analsysis
Since the study used Critical Discourse Analysis, 
the selected videos were analyzed thoroughly. The 
corpora were listened to several times with adequate 
comprehension to offer critically comprehensive criticism 
and analysis.
Furthermore, in compliance with analysis framework 
of  Colaizzi (1978), the seven-step analysis framework 
technique were utilized. Initially, the researchers closely 
examined the speech transcript to become acquainted 

with it. Secondly, the researchers recognized the 
significant claims associated with the research questions. 
Third, in order to prevent misreading the corpus, they 
employed bracketing to make use of  the elements of  
each theoretical framework. Fourth, they assigned an 
initial code to the identified speeches, which allowed 
them to group the themes. Fifth, they described the 
speakers’ responses and based on the research question. 
Sixth, in order to contextualize the study’s emphasis, they 
developed a simple explanation for every code. Finally, 
a corpus check was conducted to provide ultimate 
confirmation of  the initial results and final outcome.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Violations committed by the speakers in the premise 
of  Cooperative Principle of  Grice
This part presents the analysis and interpretations of  the 
data based on the posed research questions. It includes 
the violations of  the maxims, and the implicatures of  the 
violations committed during the senate investigations and 
hearing.

Figure 1 shows that the frequency of  violations of  the 
four maxims based on the corpora used are as follows: 
23% on the maxim of  quality, 23% on the maxim of  
quantity, 34% on the maxim of  relevance, and 20% on 
the maxim of  way. Moreover, sample transcripts of  
violations falling under each of  the maxims are explained 
below.

The Implicatures of  the violations committed during 
the senate investigations and hearing 
This part discussed the implicatures of  the violations 
committed during the senate investigations and hearing. 
The concept of  implicature is that it explains what could 
be understood, implied, or intended by speakers that 
differ from what is actually spoken by them (Ramdan, 
2020). An indirect or implicit statement that conveys 
a different meaning than intended is an implicature 
(Shardimgaliev, 2019).

Violating maxim of  quality
According to Grice (1975), speakers should contribute 

only truthful information in a conversation under the 
maxim of  quality. The speakers must give accurate and 
factual information connected to reality and facts. The 
information to be presented by the speakers must be 
supported by concrete proof. It is forbidden for speakers 
to state anything in this maxim that they feel is incorrect. 
This implies that it is seen as a non-observant of  the 
maxim when they provide information that lacks evidence 
or a doubtful information (Yulianti, 2022).
“Sen. Imee: I received this photo and I believe it was one of  the 
meetings that you alleged Mr. Oñate. Can you identify the people in 
the photograph? We’re trying to enlarge the picture to share it with 
everyone in the room. People’s initiative for charter change staff  
meeting, January 08. Can you tell us who are in the picture, Mr. 
Oñate please? Mr. Oñate: That was the time that I coordinated 
with the speaker
Sen. Imee: You said you never met the speaker nor Mr. Zaldy Co, 
you’re under oath, sir.
Mr. Oñate: Yes, that was the time that I met with the speaker to”
In this conversation, Mr. Oñate’s response violates the 
maxim of  quality by providing misleading or untruthful 

Figure 1: Frequency of  Violations of  Maxims During the Senate Hearings on People’s Initiative



Pa
ge

 
4

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 1-10, 2025

information. Mr. Oñate attempts to imply that his previous 
statement about not meeting the speaker was inaccurate 
or incomplete. By introducing the idea of  meeting with 
the speaker to discuss logistics, he suggests that while 
he may not have formally met the speaker in the context 
originally described, there was indeed a meeting involving 
the speaker for a different purpose. This implicature could 
be an attempt to reconcile his conflicting statements or 
to downplay the significance of  the meeting in question. 
However, it still skirts the truthfulness required by the 
maxim of  quality. Ramdan (2020) asserted that a speaker 
may be trying to mislead the listener if  they fail to observe 
or violate the maxim. He further stressed that these kinds 
of  violation are frequently observed in court, at parties, 
or during contentious discussions.
Sen. Imee: Kasasabi mo lang na hindi naman kayo nagkita eh 
sabi mo sina Congressman Garbin lang [You just said that you two 
haven’t even met, that you only met Congressman Garbin]
Mr. Oñate: Yeah, because it slipped my mind. It slipped my mind, 
madam senator
In this follow up interrogation, the conversation revealed 
another instance where the maxim of  quality is violated 
through the provision of  misleading or untruthful 
information. In the exchange between Sen. Imee and Mr. 
Oñate, Mr. Oñate initially fails to name the individuals 
in a photograph as asked by the senator, claiming it 
slipped his mind that he had previously met with the 
speaker. This attempt to attribute forgetfulness to his 
prior statement suggests an evasion of  accountability 
and a lack of  commitment to truthfulness (Awwad et. 
al, 2019; Christoffersen, 2005; Obenza et al., 2024). By 
providing inconsistent information about his interactions 
with the speaker, Mr. Oñate undermines the reliability 
of  his testimony and violates the principle of  honesty in 
communication.
Imee: So, you work closely with Mr. Red Tuazon and perhaps hired 
him in the past, is that correct?
Oñate: Yes. We talk every now and then
Imee: I’m very confused Mr. Oñate during the last hearing in 
January 30 when I read out his name you said very clearly that you 
did not know Atty. Red Tuazon. Now, he is not only your employee 
but a close collaborator and organizer of  PIRMA. Can you please 
confirm or deny.
Oñate: Yes, because at the time, we were in the process of  getting 
people to help us in the field
Mr. Oñate’s admission of  previously not knowing 
Atty. Red Tuazon, followed by acknowledging him as a 
close collaborator and organizer of  PIRMA, suggests 
inconsistency and raises doubts about the truthfulness 
of  his statements. This implicature implies that Mr. 
Oñate may have provided misleading or incomplete 
information during the previous hearing, violating the 
maxim of  quality by failing to provide truthful and 
accurate responses. Although, it can be observed that 
the response stirs the accuracy of  the details given to the 
question asked, Poggi (2020) simplified her understanding 
to Grice’s intention to implicate which stated that the 
meaning of  what someone says is what they intend to 

convey. So, if  a speaker says something (x) but does not 
intend for the listener to understand a specific meaning 
(S), then the speaker did not mean S, and S is not the 
message conveyed by x.
We may be acknowledging the point, it is still evident that 
the responses of  Mr. Oñate regarding the organizational 
structure of  PIRMA and his relationship with Atty. Red 
Tuazon demonstrate inconsistencies and evasive tactics. 
Initially denying knowledge of  Atty. Tuazon, Mr. Oñate 
later acknowledges their close collaboration, raising 
doubts about the credibility of  his testimony. By providing 
conflicting information and shifting narratives, Mr. 
Oñate undermines the trustworthiness of  his statements 
and violates the maxim of  quality by failing to uphold 
principles of  truthfulness and accuracy in communication. 
Overall, the conversation highlights the importance of  
maintaining honesty and transparency in a dialogue, and 
the detrimental effects of  violating the maxim of  quality 
on trust and credibility in communicative interactions.
Imee: Yes, but does Mr. Oñate know Atty Tuazon or he doesn’t 
know atty Tuazon, so I need to understand. I mean January 30, he 
never heard of  him and today he is a close associate.
Oñate: Yea. He was introduced to me about a week and a half  
ago Imee: And you organize PIRMA nationwide to undertake an 
entire people’s initiative in the past week and a half. Is that correct?
Oñate:Yes
Imee: We are all dumbfounded. Bato: Samantalang tumatakbo na 
itong PI disyembre pa lang nag break na tayo. Ibig sabihin na una 
munang tumakbo bago nabuo yong magpapatakbo. Nauna ang 
karwahe nahuli yung kabayo.
[While this PI operates since December when we had a break. 
Meaning, it operated first before the creation of  the operators. The 
carriage runs first before the horse itself.]
Mr. Oñate’s claim of  being introduced to Atty. Tuazon 
only a week and a half  ago, followed by confirming their 
close association and immediate involvement in organizing 
PIRMA’s nationwide initiatives, suggests inconsistency 
and raises doubts about the credibility of  his statements. 
This implicature implies that Mr. Oñate may have 
provided misleading or incomplete information during 
the previous hearing, violating the maxim of  quality by 
failing to provide truthful and accurate responses. Based 
on Grice’s concept on maxims, Poggi (2020) asserted that 
the speaker’s intentions determine what is said. Hence, 
in this context, it can be observed that Mr. Oñate may 
have intended to confuse or mislead an idea. Additionally, 
Senator Bato’s metaphorical statement about the sequence 
of  events (“Nauna ang karwahe nahuli yung
kabayo”) underscores the perceived illogicality or 
incongruity of  the situation, further emphasizing the 
implicature of  inconsistency in Mr. Oñate’s statements.

Violating maxim of  quantity
The rule under maxim of  quantity is that speakers should 
make the contribution to a discourse as informative as 
possible (Grice, 1975). Apparently, there the conversations 
during the senate hearing on the matter of  people’s 
initiative that showcased numerous instances where the 



Pa
ge

 
5

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 1-10, 2025

maxim of  quantity, as proposed by Paul Grice, is violated 
through insufficient or excessive information exchange.
Imee: Pwede ninyong sagutin, bat kayo nakamaskara? Bat kayo 
nagkukubli? Anong kinatatakutan ninyo, babalikan kayo?
[Can you answer why you are wearing a mask? Why are hiding? 
What are you afraid of ? That someone may come back at you?
Witness: pwede po. [That is possible]
Senator Imee’s question implies that she seeks specific 
information about why the witness is wearing a mask and 
hiding their identity. However, the witness’s response, 
“pwede po,” while complying with the request to answer, 
lacks the level of  detail expected to address Imee’s 
concerns adequately. The implicature here is that the 
witness’s response does not fulfill the quantity requirement 
and is expected by the interlocutor. It suggests that the 
witness either chooses not to disclose the full extent 
of  their reasons for wearing a mask or is deliberately 
providing minimal information, raising suspicions about 
their intentions or the significance of  their actions.
Sen. Imee: Sina congressman Zaldy Co, kasama? At si speaker 
Romualdez?
Mr. Oñate: Salde Co, no I didn’t talk to Salde.
This conversation showed another violation on the 
maxim of  quantity by responding only to the inquiry 
about Congressman Zaldy Co and omitting any mention 
of  Speaker Romualdez, Mr. Oñate avoids directly 
answering Sen. Imee’s question. This evasion tactic can 
be seen as an attempt to sidestep potentially sensitive or 
incriminating information. Consequently, it obstructs 
the flow of  the conversation and hinders the attainment 
of  clarity and transparency regarding the involvement 
of  Speaker Romualdez. This is consistent with similar 
research by Mentari (2018), who asserted that Obama 
violated the maxim of  quantity by declining to respond 
to a question because he was being extremely cautious 
to avoid providing an incorrect response that would 
implicate a concept.
Imee: So Atty Red Tuazon was hired when? You did not know him 
in January 30 is that correct?
Oñate: Yes, that’s correct. I got to know him two weeks ago
Oñate’s response only addresses the timeframe of  when 
he got to know Atty Red Tuazon, stating that it was 
“two weeks ago.” However, he evades directly answering 
Imee’s question about when Atty Tuazon was hired. By 
omitting this crucial detail, Oñate may be attempting 
to conceal information about the timeline of  Atty 
Tuazon’s employment, which could have implications 
for the credibility or legality of  their collaboration. This 
selective response undermines transparency and impedes 
the pursuit of  a comprehensive understanding of  the 
situation.
Imee: Yes Usec Dimaporo, did you request for this project? Was it 
in the NAP, was it not?
Usec. Dimaporo: No.
Additionally, in the interaction between Sen. Imee and 
Usec. Dimaporo regarding the AKAP program showed 
a violation on the maxim of  quantity. By only answering 
the last question posed by Sen. Imee (“Was it in the 

NAP, was it not?”) and neglecting to respond to the first 
part (“Did you request for this project?”), the DSWD 
representative leaves critical information unaddressed. 
This selective response could be interpreted as an 
attempt to avoid providing potentially incriminating or 
uncomfortable details. As a result, it obstructs the flow  
of   the  conversation  and  impedes  the  pursuit  of   
comprehensive understanding and transparency regarding 
the matter at hand.

Violating maxim of  relevance
Yulianti (2022) stressed that when a speaker tries to divert 
their speech partner by changing the topic of  discussion, 
it may be seen a violation of  the relevance principle. He 
further added that it usually happens when a speaker feels 
uneasy about the subject matter being discussed or when 
they are trying to keep the conversation from going too 
far in one direction by hiding anything relevant. In the 
example conversation, several instances arise where the 
maxim of  relevance proposed by Paul Grice is violated, 
leading to a lack of  focus and coherence in the discourse. 
One such instance occurs during Sen. Escudero’s inquiry 
about the congressmen contacted regarding assistance 
in obtaining the three percent required for a specific 
endeavor.
Sen. Escudero: Sino po yong mga congressman na kinontact po 
ninyo na umo-o po sa inyo na tutulungan kayo na makuha yong 
tatlong porsyento?[ Who are the congressmen that you contacted who 
agreed to help you get]
Mr. Oñate: Kaya naman naming naisip na lumapit sa mga 
congressmen is [The reason we thought of  approaching 
congressmen is…]
The violation of  the maxim of  relevance in this context 
leads to ambiguity and a lack of  clarity in communication. 
Instead of  directly answering the senator’s question, 
Mr. Oñate’s incomplete response disrupts the flow of  
the conversation and fails to contribute meaningfully 
to the discussion. It leaves the listener uncertain about 
the intended message and requires further clarification 
to understand the speaker’s intended meaning. By 
saying “Kaya naman naming naisip na lumapit sa 
mga congressmen is,” Mr. Oñate leaves the sentence 
unfinished, failing to provide the necessary information 
that would address Sen. Escudero’s inquiry.
Sen. Imee: Saan ginanap ang party na ito? Para lang malaman 
naming [Where was this party held? Just for us to know.]
Mr. Oñate: Sa ano po yan, sa townhouse sa forbes. Sa forbes park 
malapit [It was held at, uh, the townhouse in Forbes. Near Forbes 
Park.]
Sen. Imee: Kanino nga, kaninong lugar? Ipaliwanag. Wala 
naming masama mag tipon-tipon sa bahay ng maski sino. [Whose 
townhouse, whose place? Explain. There’s nothing wrong with 
gathering at anyone’s house.]
Mr. Oñate: Ano ho yan, dalawang townhouse [Uh, it’s two 
townhouses.]
Mr. Oñate’s response diverts from the question by 
discussing the location of  a party, which does not directly 
address Sen. Escudero’s query. This diversion steers the 



Pa
ge

 
6

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 1-10, 2025

conversation away from its intended topic, violating 
the maxim of  relevance by introducing irrelevant 
information. When Sen. Imee asks where the party 
took place, Mr. Oñate initially provides some relevant 
information by mentioning it was held in a townhouse 
in Forbes Park. However, when Sen. Imee seeks further 
clarification by asking whose place it was, Mr. Oñate’s 
response becomes evasive. Instead of  directly addressing 
Sen. Imee’s question and providing the name or identity 
of  the owner of  the townhouse, he responds vaguely by 
saying “Ano ho yan, dalawang townhouse,” which doesn’t 
directly answer Sen. Imee’s inquiry. By not addressing 
Sen. Imee’s specific inquiry about the ownership of  the 
townhouse, Mr. Oñate’s response violates the maxim of  
relevance. It deflects from the topic at hand and fails to 
contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Sen. Imee: Kanino po? Kaninong lugar? Inyo? Bahay mo? Bahay 
nyo po?
Mr. Oñate: It’s a meeting place. It’s our meeting place.
Sen. Imee is seeking specific information about the 
ownership or identity of  the place where the meeting 
occurred, asking if  it belonged to Mr. Oñate or someone 
else. However, Mr. Oñate’s response does not directly 
address Sen. Imee’s questions. Instead, he vaguely refers 
to it as a “meeting place” without confirming or denying 
ownership or providing further details. Ceballos and Sosas 
(2018) also identified this type of  response as a violation 
of  the maxim. When a question requires a simple yes or 
no answer, providing a lengthy statement without directly 
answering yes or no constitutes a violation. According 
to Grice’s maxims, specifically the maxim of  relevance, 
a speaker is expected to provide information that is 
pertinent to the conversational context (Grice, 1975). By 
not directly addressing Sen. Imee’s questions about the 
ownership of  the meeting place, Mr. Oñate might be 
intentionally withholding information or avoiding the 
topic. This suggests an implicature that he either does 
not wish to disclose the owner or that revealing this 
information might cause incrimination.
Oñate: So the reason why they zeroed in it was explained to me. I’m 
not a lawyer ok. It was explained to me.
Sen. Binay: Who explained to you? Who explained to you?
Oñate:  Jointing  votely…  Voting jointly
Sen. Binay: Sir Noel, who explained to you? Hindi nga, sino hong 
nagpaliwanag sa inyo?[ Sir Noel, who explained it to you? No, who 
explained it to you?]
Oñate: That the senate and the house will be combined in the 
constituent assembly and then the senators and the congressmen 
will no longer be senators and congressmen they will be constituent 
assemblymen
Sen Binay: Sino hong nagturo sa inyo nyan, si Atty abad po ba 
ang nagpaliwanag sa inyo na ganyan?[ Who taught you that, was 
it Atty. Abad who explained to you like that?]
Oñate: no. Some of  the other proponents of  People’s Initiative. 
[No. Some of  the other proponents of  People’s Initiative.]
Senator Binay is pressing Mr. Oñate to reveal who 
specifically explained the details of  the proposal to 
him. Despite Oñate’s attempt to provide a general 

explanation, Binay insists on knowing the individual or 
individuals responsible for clarifying the matter to him. 
Mr. Oñate’s response does not directly address Senator 
Binay’s specific question about who explained the details 
of  the proposal to him. Instead of  providing a relevant 
and specific answer, Mr. Oñate offers a vague response 
that does not address the central point of  Senator Binay’s 
inquiry. By failing to provide a direct response that aligns 
with the context of  the conversation, Mr. Oñate violates 
the maxim of  relevance (Awwad et. al, 2019, Obenza & 
Baradillo, 2023). This lack of  relevance impedes the flow 
of  the conversation and inhibits a clear understanding of  
the matters under discussion.

Violating maxim of  manner
Yulianti (2022) discussed that a violation on maxim of  
manner happens when an inquiry is left unanswered 
because the speaker provides ambiguous information 
and verbose response that is immaterial to the topic. 
The speaker needs to be succinct, organized, and free of  
ambiguity (Hidayati & Lukman, 2019). In the example 
conversations, the maxim of  manner proposed by Paul 
Grice is frequently violated, leading to confusion and 
inefficiency in communication. One notable instance 
occurs during Sen. Escudero’s questioning of  Mr. Oñate 
about his involvement the printing of  forms:
Sen. Escudero: Matanong ko po kayo, so kayo yong nagpaprint 
nong form na atty Abad? Yes or no?
Mr. Oñate: No, no, yea, well, Sen. Escudero: Yes or no sir
Mr. Oñate: I didn’t have the hand in the printing of  the forms
Mr. Oñate’s response implies that he was not directly 
involved in the printing of  the forms but may have had 
some indirect involvement or knowledge about it. He 
initially responds with “No, no, yea, well,” which indicates 
uncertainty or hesitancy. This lack of  clarity makes it 
difficult for the listener to understand his actual response 
to the question. The follow up question of  Senator 
Escudero establishing a yes-no answer indicated that Mr. 
Oñate is giving an ambiguous response, hence, violating 
the maxim of  manner. This is in congruent to the claim 
of  Awwad et. al (2019) that some people are unable to 
talk clearly due to anxiety or a deliberate tendency to lie.
Sen. Escudero: Mr. Oñate when did you meet cong. Garbin?
Oñate: I meet Cong. Garbin about a month ago
Sen. Escudero: A month ago. So prior to a month ago, you never 
thought of  People’s Initiative? Because he was the one who was 
spearheading it according to him.
Oñate: We launched PIRMA in 1996
Sen. Escudero: No no, this particular initiative
Oñate: We’ve been talking about it in some party, and some 
gathering Sen. Escudero: It’s okay to talk about it but in terms of  
initiating, you only met congressman Garbin a month ago. You said.
Oñate: Yeah. About a month ago. Yes.
Sen. Escudero: I guess it was only a month ago that you also 
discussed this current initiative because based on his comment earlier 
he’s very active in this.
In this conversation, Oñate’s responses indicate a lack 
of  clarity regarding the timeline and specifics of  his 



Pa
ge

 
7

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 1-10, 2025

involvement in the current initiative, suggesting that 
his participation may not have been as extensive or 
longstanding as implied. Oñate’s statements about 
launching PIRMA in 1996 and discussing the initiative 
at parties and gatherings create ambiguity about whether 
these discussions specifically pertain to the current 
initiative or are more general in nature. This ambiguity 
leads to confusion about the context of  his involvement. 
Ceballos and Sosas (2018) further believed that the 
maxim of  manner is violated not only when a statement 
is overly long, but also when the statement is unclear or 
not precisely articulated.
Imee: and he has become your close collaborator since then?
Oñate: Pardon me?
Imee: But Since January 30 when you denied any knowledge or 
familiarity with Atty Tuazon, since then you have become a close 
associate and organizer of  this Atty Tuazon?
Oñate: Yea. We text each other now. Imee: So kakilala pa lang 
kayo Oñate: Because we are beefing up our ranks
Imee: Nalilito po ako kasi humihingi si sen. Binay kanina ng 
organizational chart which I assume wasn’t made over the last two 
weeks Oñate: Yeah. We have
Atty Avisado: Madam chair if  I may, Atty Red Tuazon is 
closely working with the group of  atty Alfredo Garbin, that’s the 
connection your honor unfortunately Atty Garbin is not around
Mr. Oñate again violated the maxim of  manner as shown 
above. His subsequent responses do not follow a logical 
sequence or provide a coherent
explanation of  his relationship with Atty Tuazon. He 
mentions texting each other and beefing up their ranks, 
but these statements do not directly address Sen. Imee’s 
question. Instead of  directly addressing Sen. Imee’s 
inquiry, Oñate’s responses seem evasive and deflective. He 
does not offer a clear explanation of  how his relationship 
with Atty Tuazon evolved since January 30, which raises 
doubts about the credibility of  his statements.
Sen Binay: Hind nga, tinatanong ko lang ho kase don sa billing 
statement sa inyo ng network you need to raise 211M, kung natuloy 
tong pag place nyo ng ad [No, I’m just asking because in your 
network’s billing statement, you need to raise 211M, if  your ad 
placement pushed through.]
Oñate: the 211M was supposed to be an eight-week ad
Sen Binay: Ano bang billing sa inyo ng network weekly? Ano 
billing sa inyo ng network, weekly?[ What’s your network billing 
weekly? What’s your network billing weekly?]
Avisado: For eight weeks na po yung billing na pinadala sa amin 
and to answer also your question, yong nilabas po is the first 
phase, marami po sanang kasunod yan which would address yong 
messaging, yong communications ng PIRMA on people’s initiative. 
[The billing sent to us was for eight weeks, and to also answer your 
question, what was released is the first phase. There were supposed 
to be many more following phases which would address the messaging 
and communications regarding the signature drive on people’s
initiative.]
In Sen. Binay’s questioning about the financial aspects 
of  a project, Mr. Oñate’s responses lack specificity and 
clarity. When asked about the billing statement from 
the network, Mr. Oñate’s response about an eight-week 

ad and the subsequent explanation from Atty Avisado 
further complicates the discussion. Avisado’s statement 
about the billing being for “eight weeks” is ambiguous 
because it does not specify whether this refers to the total 
billing amount or the duration of  the ad campaign. This 
ambiguity can lead to confusion and misunderstanding 
about the financial arrangements between the parties 
involved. This lack of  clarity and specificity violates the 
maxim of  manner by failing to provide clear and concise 
information, making it difficult for the participants to 
understand the financial aspects of  the project. Violation 
of  the maxim of  manner typically occurs when speakers 
respond vaguely to a question or provide a lengthy, drawn-
out answer instead of  a straightforward one. According 
to Ceballos and Sosas (2018), there can be an overlap 
between the maxims of  quantity and manner, particularly 
regarding the length of  a response.

Potential Language Crimes Based on the Violations
Violations of  Grice’s maxims in this context could imply 
several potential language crimes or unethical behaviors, 
such as:

Obstruction of  Justice
One element of  the obstruction of  justice is providing 
false testimony. Making misleading claims or denying 
knowledge of  facts before a grand jury might be considered 
obstructing justice (Decker, 2004). By impeding the 
pursuit of  truth and hindering the effectiveness of  the 
committee’s inquiry, individuals may be obstructing the 
administration of  justice.
An instance during the senate hearing manifested a 
potential obstruction of  justice. By responding only to 
the inquiry about Congressman Zaldy Co and omitting 
any mention of  Speaker Romualdez, Mr. Oñate avoids 
directly answering Sen. Imee’s question. This evasion 
tactic can be seen as an attempt to sidestep potentially 
sensitive or incriminating information. Consequently, it 
obstructs the flow of  the conversation and hinders the 
attainment of  clarity and transparency regarding the 
involvement of  Speaker Romualdez. Ceballos and Sosas 
(2018) emphasized that the maxim of  quantity is violated 
when someone gives more or less information than is 
necessary, consequently, Mr. Onate may
have obstructed justice in this instance due to his 
breach of  this principle. According to Decker (2004), 
deliberate attempts to obstruct the investigation or legal 
process by employing communicative strategies aimed 
at evading questions, providing misleading information, 
or withholding relevant details could be considered 
obstruction of  justice.
Similarly, in conversation between Abad and the 
interlocutors, Abad’s response provides sufficient 
information regarding his role in the organization but 
fails to directly address the discrepancy highlighted by 
Senator Imee regarding Mr. Oñate’s claim about Abad’s 
involvement with PIRMA. The potential language crime 
committed by this violation of  the maxim of  quantity is 



Pa
ge

 
8

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 1-10, 2025

obstruction of  justice. Despite explaining his advisory 
role within PIRMA, Abad does not directly confirm or 
deny Mr. Oñate’s previous statement about his affiliation 
with the organization. This evasion of  directly addressing 
the contradiction between his statement and Mr. Oñate’s 
claim implies a deliberate attempt to avoid providing 
a clear answer, which undermines transparency and 
hinders the progress of  the conversation. By deflecting 
the question, Abad may be attempting to obfuscate his 
true level of  involvement with PIRMA or avoid potential 
consequences associated with conflicting statements. 
According to Mnisi (2009), in modern English law, altering 
or hiding potential evidence is considered a perversion of  
the process of  justice.
Likewise, about the ownership or identity of  the place 
where a meeting occurred, asking if  it belonged to Mr. 
Oñate or someone else, however, Mr. Oñate’s response 
does not directly address Sen. Imee’s questions. Instead, 
he vaguely refers to it as a “meeting place” without 
confirming or denying ownership or providing further 
details. When Mr. Oñate was asked about the ownership 
or identity of  the place where the meeting occurred, Mr. 
Oñate avoids providing relevant information that could 
contribute to the understanding of  the situation.
Mr. Oñate’s responses to questions about his interactions 
with Speaker Romualdez and other individuals could be 
considered misleading. Initially denying knowledge of  
these interactions and then later admitting to them could 
lead to confusion and misdirection of  the committee’s 
investigation. Violating Grice’s maxims by providing 
unclear information could be a strategy to mislead or 
confuse the committee about the actual facts. This could 
be considered a form of  deception aimed at obscuring 
the truth or diverting attention from pertinent issues. 
As stressed in the study of  Ceballos and Sosas (2018), 
maxims are broken
for a variety of  reasons, including hiding information, 
shifting the topic, denying and more others. Furthermore, 
Hemel and Posner (2018) stressed that obstruction 
cases involve charges of  changing, hiding, or destroying 
subpoenaed documents, as well as encouraging or giving 
false evidence.

Perjury
Perjury involves lying while testifying. A person is guilty 
of  perjury if, contrary to an oath, they knowingly say 
or subscribe to any substantial fact that they do not 
believe to be true. This is sometimes referred to as the 
false statement requirement (Tiersma & Solan, 2012). 
While perjury typically involves making false statements 
under oath, systematic evasion or intentional ambiguity 
in statements during a formal hearing could also suggest 
a willingness to bend the truth or not fully disclose 
information. If  these actions are found to be deliberate 
and aimed at misleading the committee, they could 
be considered perjury or providing false testimony. 
Typically, A conversation was found to have concerns 
about potential perjury, particularly regarding Mr. Oñate’s 

inconsistent statements about his relationship with 
Atty. Red Tuazon and his involvement in organizing the 
PIRMA initiative. If  Mr. Oñate knowingly provides false 
or misleading information to the committee about these 
matters, it could constitute perjury or providing false 
testimony.
In a related case involving perjury, Bronston v. United 
States, where the issue was whether a witness may be 
found guilty of  perjury for providing an oath that was 
literally truthful but did not address the subject posed 
and would have been misleading by negative inference, 
Samuel Bronston was questioned if  he had any bank 
accounts with Swiss banks, he categorically denied having 
any. As a matter of  truth, Bronston used to own a sizable 
personal Swiss bank account, was convicted of  perjury. 
While Bronston’s response to the second question was 
accurate in its literal sense, the prosecution seemed to 
persuade the jury that he had never held a personal Swiss 
bank account. The Supreme Court acknowledged that 
Bronston’s response may lead one to believe that he had 
never had a personal account in Switzerland. However, 
Bronston never made this clear. The Court clarified 
that the perjury law only applies to the witness’s explicit 
statements—not to his implication (Tiersma & Solan, 
2012).

Fraud
According to Momeni (2012), fraud is a linguistic 
crime when a swindler utilizes words to deceive others, 
regardless of  the instruments used. Fraud occurs when 
the following conditions are met: dishonest instruments 
used to defraud others, victim’s lack of  information about 
the tools, and loss of  possession a victim (Shambayati, 
1375/1998). In the context of  discussing organizational 
statuses, misrepresentations about the legal standing 
or actions of  entities like PIRMA could potentially 
be linked to fraudulent activities, especially if  these 
misrepresentations are made to secure benefits or avoid 
penalties.
A conversation about the involvement of  individuals in 
the PIRMA initiative and their connections to certain 
lawmakers. If  individuals like Atty. Abad are found to 
have misrepresented their involvement or affiliations 
with PIRMA, particularly if  it involves securing benefits 
or avoiding penalties, it could potentially constitute 
fraudulent behavior. Linguistic elements such as subject 
shift and violation of  cooperative principles, particularly 
maxim of  relevance, in the statements of  the perpetrator 
and accused may contribute to the formation of  a crime 
(Momeni, 2012).

CONCLUSION
This paper shed light to the implications of  violating 
Grice’s maxims during senate investigations and hearings, 
focusing on potential language crimes such as obstruction 
of  justice, perjury, and fraud. This study is crucial as 
it sheds light on how breaches of  communication 
principles can undermine the integrity and effectiveness 



Pa
ge

 
9

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 1-10, 2025

of  legal proceedings, ultimately jeopardizing the pursuit 
of  justice and truth. Throughout the analysis, instances 
of  individuals evading questions, providing misleading 
information, or withholding crucial details emerged, 
highlighting the pervasiveness of  unethical behaviors 
that hinder transparency and obstruct the administration 
of  justice. It is evident that adherence to Grice’s maxims 
is paramount in ensuring clear, honest, and cooperative 
communication within legal contexts.
Furthermore, the analysis of  Grice’s maxims and their 
violations in the provided conversations opens avenues 
for further research in several areas of  communication 
studies. Further research could focus on developing 
interventions and strategies to mitigate maxim violations 
and promote ethical communication practices. By 
drawing on insights from psychology, linguistics, and 
communication theory, researchers can design and 
implement interventions aimed at raising awareness of  
Grice’s maxims, enhancing communication skills, and 
fostering ethical communication behaviors.

REFERENCES
Al-Zubeiry, H. Y. A. (2020). Violation of  Grice’s maxims 

and humorous implicatures in the Arabic comedy 
Madraset Al-Mushaghbeen. Journal of  Language and 
Linguistic Studies, 16(2), 1043–1057. https://doi.
org/10.17263/jlls.759363

Awwad, A. S., Ayasreh, A. M., Ayasrah, N. M., & AL-
Sabti, N. (2019). Interpretations of  the Gricean 
conversational maxims violations. International Journal 
of  Applied Engineering Research, 14(22), 4100-4104. 
Research India Publications. Retrieved from http://
www.ripublication.com

Birkland, T. A. (2016). An introduction to the policy process: 
Theories, concepts and models of  public policy making (4th 
ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Ceballos, C. T., & Sosas, R. V. (2018). On court 
proceedings: A forensic linguistic analysis on maxim 
violation. Journal of  Nusantara Studies, 3(2), 17-31 
http://dx.doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol3iss2pp17-3

Christhoffer, D. (2005). The shameless liar guide’s. 
Sourcebooks Hysteria Coulthard, M., Grant, T., & 
Kredens. (2010). Encyclopedia of  Forensic Sciences: Law 
Forensic Linguistics. In B. Johnstone, R. Wodak, & P. 
Kerswill (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design (5th 
ed.). SAGE Publications.

Cruz, J. A. F. (2013). Critical Discourse Analysis and 
criminology: An interdisciplinary approach. Politica 
Criminal, 8, 472-499.

Decker, J. F. (2004). The varying parameters of  obstruction 
of  justice in american criminal law. La. L. Rev., 65, 49.

Deimer, D., & Feddersen, T. (2000). Information and 
congressional hearings. American Journal of  Political 
Science, 44, 51–65.

Dewan, M. (2023). Critical Discourse Analysis: A 
Significant Tool in Literature Teaching. Politica 
Criminal, 1, 70-78.

Dewi, R., & La’biran, R. (2023). Language Crime by 
Students in the Communication Process on Campus. 
Journal of  English Education and Teaching, 7, 928-941. 
http://doi.org/10.33369/jeet.7.4.928-941

Dewi, R., & Rukuk, S. (2022). Violations of  Language 
in Learning Process at Toraja Christian University 
of  Indonesia. AL-ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan,14(2). 
https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v14i2.1111

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole 
& J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (3, Speech 
acts). New York: Academic P.

Hassan, J. (2020). Forensic Linguistics: A Study in Criminal 
Speech Acts. Beni- Suef  University International Journal 
of  Humanities and Social Sciences, 2, 39-65. http://doi.
org/10.21608/buijhs.2020.91333

Hemel, D., & Posner, E. (2018). Presidential Obstruction of  
Justice. 106 California Law Review, 1277.

Herwin, H., Mahmudah, M., & Saleh, S. (2021). Analysis 
of  Language Crimes on Social Media (Forensic 
Linguistics). Fon: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Dan Sastra 
Indonesia, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.25134/fon.
v17i2.4431

Hidayati, H., & Lukman, L. (2019). A Conversational 
Analysis of  Grice’s Maxims Theories on Cooperative 
Principles at Undergraduate English Students.
Linguistics and ELT Journal, 11(5). http://doi.
org/10.31764/leltj.v11i1.742

La’biran, R., Dewi, R., Muthmainnah, M., & Hasby, M. 
(2019). The Students’ Attitude Towards The Use 
of  Interactive Classroom Activities in Developing 
The Communicative Competence of  the Eleventh 
Grade Students of  SMA Kristen Barana. Pepatudzu: 
Educational and Social Community Media, 14(2). https://
doi.org/10.35329/fkip.v14i2.199

Mentari, A. (2018). The Maxim Violations of  Barack 
Obama’s Utterance in Interview with Claus Kleber about Spy 
Intelligence. http://eprints.undip.ac.id/65352/1

Obenza, B. N., Caloc, L. J. R., & Baradillo, D. G. (2024). 
A Political Discourse Analysis of  the Philippine 
Politicians’ speech acts on People’s Initiative: A 
Forensic Linguistics study. European Journal of  
Applied Linguistics Studies, 2(2), 184–201. https://doi.
org/10.46827/ejals.v7i2.559

Obenza, B. & Baradillo, D. (2023). A Sentiment Analysis 
on the Resumption of  ICC Investigation on the 
Philippine Drug War. International Journal on Orange 
Technologies, 5(11),  16–28. Research Parks Publishing. 
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10171328

Perna, L. W., Orosz, K., & Kent, D. C. (2019). The 
Role and Contribution of  Academic Researchers in 
Congressional Hearings: A Critical Discourse Analysis. 
American Educational Research Journal, 56(1), 111-145. 
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218788824

Poggi, F. (2020). Against the conversational model of  legal 
interpretation: On the difference between legislative 
intent and speaker’s intention. Journal for Constitutional 
Theory and Philosophy of  Law, 40, 9-26. https://doi.
org/10.4000/revus.5694



Pa
ge

 
10

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 1-10, 2025

Ramdan, A. H. (n.d.). Implicature of  the utterances at 
court: A pragmatics study. English Journal Literacy 
Utama, 2(2), 186-192. https://doi.org/10.33197/
ejlutama.vol4.iss1.2020.390

Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2017). The Discourse-Historical 
Approach (DHA). In The Routledge Handbook of  
Critical Discourse Studies.

Shambayati, H. (1375/1997). Crimes against Possession. 
Tehran: Vistar Publication.

Shardimgaliev, M. (2019). Implicatures in Judicial 
Opinions. International Journal of  Semiotics and Law, 
32(3), 391–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-
018- 09601-4

Tiersma, P., & Solan, L. (2012). The Language of  Crime. 
Oxford University Press.

Warami, H. (2021). Language Crimes on Social Media in 
the Legal Area of  Manokwari: A Forensic Linguistics 
Study. International Journal of  Forensic, 2(1).


