ORAL INFORMATIONS. - They are explanations or illustrations of the case that the advocate sets before the judge, in order to clarify the arguments that tell in his favor. They are evidently information of a private character.
The practice was tolerated in the Curia until the CIC. G. De Luca (Relatio Romanae Curiae, disc. 40 n. 24, in Theatrum veritatis..., XV, Rome 1726, p. 374) speaks of it favorably and recounts i. o. made to the Supreme Pontiff himself before the definition of certain cases at the Apostolic Signatura.
In current law they are forbidden 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; whence the maxim "quod non est in actis, non est in mundo." In this way it is also intended to remove the judge from the allurements of the blandishments of advocates, which can induce 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). However, 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. The oral dispute, since it must be moderate, must not take the oratorical form; it may contain the illustration of the proofs or exceptions already adduced, but may not adduce new ones. To obtain the 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, setting the day and hour of the discussion, which he will moderate (can. 1866 § 2). Anyone who exceeds due bounds in the discussion may lose the right to speak and, in the case of advocates or procurators, they may even be suspended or deprived of office (Normae S. R. Rotae, art. 134, loc. cit.). A notary must be present at the discussion to record it in minutes, in the event that the judge so orders or a party requests it and the judge consents (art. 1866 § 4).
Bibliography3 works
Vittorio Bartoccetti