INFORMATIONES ORALES. — These are explanations or elucidations of the case that the advocate presents to the judge in order to clarify the reasons supporting his position. Evidently, they are information of a private nature.
Their use was tolerated in the Curia until the CIC. G. De Luca (Relatio Romanae Curiae, disc. 40 n. 24, in Theatrum veritatis..., XV, Roma 1726, p. 374) speaks of them favorably and recounts instances of i. o. given to the same Supreme Pontiff before the definition of certain cases before the Apostolic Signatura.
In current law, they are prohibited by can. 1866 § 1 as a consequence of the character of the canonical process, which is eminently « written », that is, based exclusively on the acts; hence the dictum « quod non est in
actis, non est in mundo ». This is also intended to protect the judge from the allurements of advocates’ cajolery, which may lead to assessments that are not entirely objective.
The norm of the CIC is repeated in art. 132 § 1 of the Normae of the S. Romana Rota (AAS, 26 [1934], p. 134). Nevertheless, both can. 1866 and art. 132 of the Normae permit and regulate a modest « disputatio oralis » on the part of the advocates, which may be granted. In fact, however, it is rarely used in the ecclesiastical forum. Since the oral disputation must be moderate, it must not assume an oratorical form; it may contain an elucidation of the evidence or exceptions already introduced, but not the introduction of new ones. In order to obtain an oral discussion, the parties must submit in writing a brief summary of the points to be discussed, which the judge may communicate to the other party, assigning the day and hour of the discussion, which he will moderate (can. 1866 § 2). Anyone who exceeds the limits in the discussion may lose the right to speak and, if they are advocates or procurators, may also be suspended or deprived of office (Normae S. R. Rotae, art. 134, loc. cit.). A notary must attend the discussion in order to record it, if the judge orders this or the party requests it and the judge consents (art. 1866 § 4).