Papilota-Diaz 55 rape when the accused (a teacher) claimed that the complainant (his student) were lovers since there were love letters, which were used as evidence in court, from his student with contents that transcend the bounds of decency of a teacher-student relationship. The sexual intercourse was said to have been done not by force or intimidation but with consent. These myths about the rape victim are persistent in courts of law (WLB Inc. 2005, 62). Many of these have been the bases for legal decisions from the lower courts to the Supreme Court. These are not only prevalent in court decisions; primarily, they are revealed as ideological frames during trial proceedings where judges, lawyers, and witnesses interact. It is not only the accused who stands to defend himself in rape case trials but also the complainant. Since previous studies on rape myths in the Philippine courtroom have never focused on the linguistic details of interaction, this essay highlights the importance of discourse in the analysis of TSNs. Most analysts see discourse as some stretch of connected sentences or utterances. But for those who consider it from a social and critical theory perspective, discourse is language which communicates a meaning in a context that constitutes interaction between people in real social situations (Cameron 1998, 112-14). In analyzing rape trial discourse, this essay also aims to effect social transformation by mobilizing theories of pragmatics to create critical awareness among judicial authorities who may act responsibly to certain issues in trial proceedings. Likewise, women who at present take part in rape case trials as complainants may be informed of rape myths in trial proceedings since the analysis focuses on a specific experience that depicts an adversarial conduct in the courtroom. Probing Secondary Victimization through Discourse Secondary victimization in the courtroom (i.e., women rape complainants are said to be victimized twice – first by the physicalsexual abuse and then by the blame that accompanies it) has been tackled by several language scholars. Drew (1992) emphasizes the role of talk-in-interaction in the strategies of the defense lawyer in presenting his version of events vis-à-vis the complainant’s version.